(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Annual report"

San Francisco Public Library 

Government Information Center 
San Francisco Public Library 
100 Larkin Street, 5th Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94102 

REFERENCE BOOK 

Not to be taken from the Library 







SF I Public Defender 



OFFICE OF THE 

PUBLIC 

DEFENDER 



555 Seventh Street 
,San Francisco CA 94103 
415-553-1671 (switchboard) 
415-553-9810 (fax) 
Jeff Brown, Public Defender 
Peter G. Keane, Chief Attorney 



ij£j L Phone Directory jB W Annual Report 



DOCUMENTS DEPT, 



Annual Report 

Fiscal Year 1997-98 



AUG 1 h 2000 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



The mission of the Public Defender's Office is to provide indigent persons charged 
with crimes or subject to mental health conservatorships with effective assistance 
of counsel and to do so in an ethical and efficient manner. 

This mission statement represents the irreducible nature of the office. Some 
commentary, therefore, is appropriate. A person charged with a crime is entitled to 
effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution and 
under the California Constitution. Effective assistance means a defense that is 
rigorous, that explores the facts and the law of the case, that consults with the 
client on a continuous basis, and zealously puts the best case of the client forward. 
Although the person subject to a mental health conservatorship does not enjoy a 
Sixth Amendment protection, his or her liberty is at stake, and he or she has been 
given the right to counsel by statute to the same good lawyering as our clients 
charged with crimes. 

In order to provide effective assistance for poor people unable to afford his or her 
own attorney communities have the option of providing counsel on a case-by-case 
basis or through organized offices such as a Public Defender's Office. 

The San Francisco Public Defender's Office is this community's attempt to fulfill its 
obligation to provide effective assistance for all indigents. It is an office of 75 
lawyers, 11 investigators, and 20 support personnel which represents indigents in 
felony, misdemeanor, juvenile and mental health cases. 

The office is organized into divisions: 

(1) The administrative division consists of the Public Defender, the Chief 
Attorney, the Executive Assistant to the Public Defender, and the office 
accountant. 

(2) The felony division is supervised by 2 attorneys and consists of 36 line 



3 1223 07087 0283 



>F I Public Defender 



attorney. 

(3) The misdemeanor division has one supervisor and 16 attorneys. 

(4) The juvenile division has 1 supervisor, 5 attorneys, 1 investigator, a 
clerical person, and a social worker. 

(5) The mental health division consists of 2 attorneys and 2 investigators. 

(6) The investigative unit is supervised by 1 attorney and has 9 investigators. 

(7) The clerical unit is supervised by the attorney who supervises 
investigation and has 16 employees who do word processing, legal 
processing, and provide reception services. 

Program Costs 

The personnel costs of each unit or division was during Fiscal Year 1997-98. 

(1) Administrative: $438,460 

(2) Felony: $3,861,504 

(3) Misdemeanor: $1,230,335 

(4) Juvenile: $956,526 

(5) Mental Health: $266,470 

(6) Research: $318,034 

(7) Clerical: $763,636 

The costs associated with representing clients in the felony, misdemeanor, 
juvenile, and mental clients include the costs of personnel assigned to their unit as 
well as all other costs, such as the use of investigators (not assigned to the unit), 
rent, books, etc. They are: 

(1) Felony: $5,939,274 

(2) Misdemeanor: $596,706 

(3) Juvenile: $1,050,995 

(4) Mental Health: $293,119 

Felony Unit 
Program Work 



3F | Public Defender | 



Felony Cases 
1997-1998 



New Felony Cases 5,624 

Motions-To-Revoke Probation 2.336 

7,960 



1997 

New Felony Cases 5,772 

Motions-To-Revoke Probation 2.234 

8,006 



Description of Program Work 

New felony cases represent the number of cases the Public Defender is appointed 
to defend at the arraignment in the Municipal Court. From that point on the Public 
Defender will be responsible for legal counsel of the person accused. 

Motions to revoke probation are cases where the District Attorney or the Probation 
Department moves to revoke a current probation in the Superior Court. 

Inter-Year Comparisons of Workload 

Felony arraignments in the Municipal Court are the basic intake for the work of the 
felony attorney. It is from that point that representation of the client begins and will 
continue until a disposition is reached in the Superior Court. As Figure 1 indicates, 
there is some variance over the years in the number of cases the Public Defender 
takes in at arraignment. However, in the last few years the numbers have stayed at 
a high plateau. 

Motions to revoke probation once represented a small portion of the felony 
attorneys' workload. In recent years it has become a major source of work and their 
number is increasing (see Figure 1). The motions to revoke have become a 
substitute form of prosecution. That is to say, the District Attorney will often 
dispense with a new prosecution of a person if that person happens to be a felony 
probationer. By doing this, a prosecutor can institute proceedings in the Superior 
Court, avoiding a probable cause hearing before a magistrate. Moreover, the 
prosecutor will not have to try the issue of culpability before a jury nor will the 
prosecutor have to prove culpability beyond a reasonable doubt, as he or she 
would in a new prosecution. 

It is an understatement to say the decline of jury trials in the San Francisco 
Superior Court is a marked trend (see Figure 3). The utilization of plea bargaining 
is so rampant as a way to resolve cases that jury trials could virtually disappear. 

The most commonly cited explanation among trial attorneys in this Public 
Defender's Office is that the degree of leniency is now greater in the plea 



F I Public Defender 



bargaining. There is some evidence of that when one considers the number of 
state prison sentences out of San Francisco County compared to the rest of the 
state. Figure 4 provides California Department of Corrections data for state prison 
sentencing for San Francisco and California. 

Misdemeanor Unit 



Misdemeanor Cases 



1997-98 

New Felony Cases 7,704 

Motions-To-Revoke Probation 1.175 

8,879 



1997 

New Felony Cases 8,022 

Motions-To-Revoke Probation 1.097 

9,119 



Description of Program Work 

New misdemeanor cases are those arraigned in misdemeanor departments of the 
Municipal Court. Motions to revoke probation are those cases where the District 
Attorney or Adult Probation Department seeks to revoke a misdemeanor grant of 
probation. 

Juvenile 

Description of Program Work 

The Juvenile Unit has the responsibility of representing minors charged with crimes 
in the Juvenile Court by petitions to the court and representing minors in motions to 
revoke their probations through supplemental petitions. The Juvenile Unit between 
July 1, 1997 and June 30, 1998 represented minors faced with petitions and 
supplemental petitions in 996 cases. 

In addition, the Juvenile Unit represented 261 adults in dependency cases wherein 
the Department of Human Services seeks to suspend parental custody because of 
an alleged abuse or neglect. 

Mental Health Unit 

Description of Program Work 

The two attorneys and two investigators assigned to the Mental Health Unit handle 
cases of mental patients for whom various hearings must be held. The 14-day 



SF | Public Defender | 



probable cause hearing involves the initial authority to hold a patient for 14 days 
prior to a finding of his or her competence and placement on a conservatorship. 

The conservatorship hearings address the issue of whether the patient is a danger 
to himself/herself and to others. There are various post-conservatorship hearings to 
examine the patient's ability and present dangerousness. These include hearings 
on writs of habeas corpus brought by the patient to contest the continued 
conservatorship, hearings for conservatorship renewals and re-hearings. 

The other work of the unit involves hearings on treatment issues. 



Probable Cause Hearings 1799 

Medication Competency Hearings 234 

Writs of Habeas Corpus 1 60 

New Conservatorships 289 

Conservatorship Renewals 552 

Conservatorship Terminators 26 

Re-Hearings 61 

Medical Consents 28 

Hearings on Shock Therapy 26 

Hearings To Change Conservators 3 

Placement Hearings 

Hearings on Capacity for 

Medical Care and Psychotropic Medication 1 145 



f>05 

£000 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT, 2000 



City and County of£an Francisco 



Office of the Public Defender 



Annual Report 2000 



/', 



JEFF BROWN 
PUBLIC DEFENDER 



JEFFREY G. ADACHI 
CHIEF ATTORNEY 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
JUL 3 I 2000 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



-l 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT, 2000 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



Introduction to the 2000 Annual Report 
Part A - Statistical Abstract 

Part B - Detailed Report 

I. Public Defender's Mission 

II. Relevant Facts and Trends in the Law 

III. Office Jurisdiction 

IV. Office Structure, Staff, Budget, and Caseload 

V. Departmental Units 

A) Felony Unit 

B) Misdemeanor Unit 

C) Juvenile Unit 

D) Mental Health Unit 

E) Investigative Unit 

F) Research Unit 

G) Administrative Unit 

VI. Programs 

VII. Office Development and Training 

Appendix 



-2 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT, 2000 _____ 

Introduction to the 2000 Annual Report 

The Annual Report is a comprehensive description of the work of the Public Defender's 
Office. It is a statement of the office's jurisdiction, mission, and programs, as well as a 
record of its budget and costs. 

The San Francisco Public Defender's Office will be 79 years old on October 10, 2000. 
The office was established decades before the Supreme Court required appointed counsel 
for poor people in criminal cases. This pioneering effort in creating the Public Defender 
reflected the best qualities of San Francisco - a commitment to humane values, a deep 
respect for the Constitution, a heartfelt sense of fairness. 

The San Francisco Public Defender is one of the few elected Public Defenders in the 
country. As an elected official, the Public Defender is accountable to the public in terms 
of the quality of his administration. This annual report is presented to the public pursuant 
to that responsibility. 



3- 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT, 2000 



Part A - Statistical Abstract 



Office Statistics 

The office employs 121 people 

84 attorneys 

17 staff members 

2 executive staff 

14 investigators 

2 paralegals 

2 social workers 



Case Statistics 

Total cases handled, Calendar Year 1999 
Total cases handled, Calendar Year 1998 
Total number of jury trials, 1999-141 
Total number of jury trials, 1998 - 133 



22,509 
20,501 



Budget Statistics 

Total annual budget, 1999-2000 - $12,162,725 
Annual budget one year ago - $10,879,130 
Annual budget ten years ago - $8,321,160 



Types of Cases, 1999 



Mental 

Health 

19% 



"Juvenile 
4% 




Felony 
39% 



Misdemeanor 
38% 



-4- 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT, 2000 



Part B - Detailed Report 
I. Public Defender's Mission 

The mission of the Public Defender's Office is to provide indigent adults and juveniles 
charged with crimes or subject to mental health conservatorships with effective assistance 
of counsel and to do so in an ethical and efficient manner. In doing this, the Public 
Defender provides protection to the least powerful and most disliked members of the 
community - the indigent accused. More than twenty thousand such people are 
represented each year. To carry out this enormous task and responsibility, the office has 
a staff of 85 attorneys and 35 support personnel working out of two facilities in the city, 
The Office of the Public Defender on 7 th Street and Juvenile Hall on Woodside Avenue. 

A person charged with a crime is entitled to effective assistance of counsel under both the 
California and Federal Constitutions. "Effective assistance" means a defense that is 
rigorous, that explores the facts and the law of the case, that consults with the client on a 
continuous basis, and that zealously puts the best case of the client forward. 

In order to provide effective assistance for people unable to afford a private attorney, a 
community must provide counsel, either on a case by case basis or through organized 
offices such as this one. 



The Public Defender's Office is something of an anomaly within the criminal justice 
system. On the one hand, our attorneys must give the same undivided loyalty to the 
interests of our clients as would be provided by private attorneys. On the other hand, the 
office is a governmental entity and the attorneys receive their pay from the government. 
This anomalous role can be a major source of problems for deputy public defenders. 
Aggressive deputy public defenders who place their clients' interests above all else may 
find themselves at odds with the court system. They must be strong willed and 
independent enough to stand up to pressure, and must not sacrifice their clients' interests 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT, 2000 

for the sake of judicial economy. This does not mean that deputy public defenders must 
be needlessly intransigent or quarrelsome, but it does mean that the deputy public 
defenders are their clients' advocates, first and foremost. 

Like any government entity, the Public Defender faces and grapples with the state of the 
budget each year. The Public Defender must work with the Mayor and the Board of 
Supervisors in order to have the budget approved. Thereafter, he must manage the 
office's program costs and supervise the expenditure of money and resources in order to 
assure that the delivery of legal services is as economical as possible without sacrificing 
the quality of those services. 

As an elected official, the Public Defender must also educate the public at large about the 
function of the defense attorney in the criminal justice system. A significant amount of 
time is spent answering inquiries about critical issues that are the subject of passionate 
debate. The Public Defender must have the fortitude to enter such debates and provide an 
informed view, be it popular or unpopular. 

Thus, the Public Defender is more than a passive player within the criminal justice 
system. He must articulate his thoughts about the overall quality of justice in the criminal 
justice system, and must speak out when injustices occur. The Public Defender must 
constantly strive to maintain public respect for the office and the criminal justice system. 



Before turning to a discussion of the specific operations of the office, we will examine 
the trends in the law which inform our work and give greater clarity to the remainder of 
this document. 



6- 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT, 2000 

II. Relevant Facts and Trends in the law 

All statistics from US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics or the California Department of Corrections. 

National 

The Nation's inmate population is growing and is projected to reach 2 million by 
late 2001. 

As of June 30, 1999 there were 1,860,520 persons held in State or Federal prisons or in 
local jails. The rate of incarceration has been increasing an average of 5.8% per year for 
the last ten years. At these rates, prisoner # 2,000,000 will be committed between June 
and December of 2001. 

Jail privatization is increasing. 

47 of the Nation's 3,365 local jails are privately owned or operated, up from 17 in 1993. 
These jails house 13,814 persons, 2.3% of all jail inmates. California and Texas have the 
largest number of private jails, 8 in each state. 

The racial makeup of prisoners is grossly disproportionate to the racial makeup of 
the general population. 

For every 100,000 white males, 631 are incarcerated. For every 100,000 Hispanic males, 
1,802 are incarcerated. For every 100,000 black males, 4,617 are incarcerated. A black 



male born today is 28.5% likely to go to prison, while a Hispanic male is 16%likely ahcT 
a white male 4.4% likely. While far fewer women are incarcerated, the racial proportions 
are similar. 



State 



California spends 7.2% of the General Fund budget on Corrections. 

The California Department of Corrections is allotted $4.6 billion in the 1999-2000 
budget, operating 33 state prisons, 38 camps, and 8 prisoner mother facilities. Inmates 
are housed at an average cost of $21, 243 per person. 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT, 2000 



California has a larger prison population than any other State in the Nation. 

California has 164,523 inmates in its prisons, larger than the number in the entire Federal 
prison system (130,378). California also has more women in prison, 1 1,692, than any 
other state or the Federal system. 

California's local jails are operating above rated capacity. 

On June 30, 1999 there were 77,142 inmates in a system designed for 75,088 persons, 
103% of the rated capacity. 

Also, despite the fact that the California Department of Corrections has been involved in 
the largest prison building program in the United States, inmate population is expected to 
to exceed maximum operating prison capacity in April, 2004. 



Local 



In 1999, San Francisco contributed 1.3% to the total number of felons statewide. 

In 1999, San Francisco admitted 746 persons to felony prison commitments. By contrast, 
the 9 county Bay Area contributed a total of 7,595 persons, 12.7%. Los Angeles County 
contributed 20,559, or 34.3% of the total. 

San Francisco's felony incarceration rate is half that of the rest of the State. 



In 1998, San Francisco sent 702 people to felony prison commitments - 89 people per 
100,000. By contrast, the State total was 63,972 felony prison commitments - 191 
people per 100,000. 

San Francisco convicts half as many felons as five years ago. 

In 1999, San Francisco admitted 746 persons to felony prison commitments. In 1994, 
San Francisco admitted 1,790 persons. 



8- 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT, 2000 



Local criminal justice office computerization is on the rise. 

During the last 18 months, the Public Defender's office has deployed an Intranet system. 
Through this Intranet, members of the office are able to communicate with one another 
electronically and also to exchange e-mail with other government agencies and Internet 
users. The office has successfully placed a computer at the desk of every attorney and 
every investigator in the department. These ends have required the investment of 
significant resources in the purchase of computer equipment and the installation of 
upgraded power and communication lines to facilitate greater electrical and bandwidth 
needs. The development of this Intranet has spawned a voluminous data bank of 
information, a resource that grows with the experience of our office and preserves the 
talent of our Public Defenders. All of this has resulted in unprecedented communication 
between staff, sharing ideas, problems, and strategies. 

While the office has vastly increased its use of computer technology, the local justice 
system as a whole is saddled with an outdated information management system. Called 
the Court Management System, this package has for all its limitations one advantage: it is 
an integrated system where data originates in the courts and is shared by all of the 
criminal justice agencies as users in common. As such, the Court Management System 
saves individual criminal justice agencies from having to generate their own case or 
client data, and allows for data to be analyzed without a suspicion that the data is self- 
serving or biased because it originates from any one particular agency. However, the 
-softwareJor the CMS utilizes archaic computer code with dwindling utility. The 



system's capacity to add new features and capabilities is restricted. The users access 
CMS' data on outmoded "dumb" terminals that lack the capacity for even pointing 
devices. CMS does not allow users to communicate with one another. Documents 
cannot be imaged, and other databases cannot be merged. 

For almost twenty years, the Public Defender among others has campaigned for a 
revamping of the CMS. Despite overwhelming evidence of the system's inadequacy and 
the potential that a re- written system would represent, these cries have fallen on deaf ears 



-9 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT, 2000 

as even criminal justice department heads have been slow to acquaint themselves with the 
problem. 

In 1998, controller Edward Harrington came to recognize the difficulty that local criminal 
justice systems faced when using CMS. Money was allocated for a study to chart the 
terms and conditions for a rewritten system. The many benefits of a modern, integrated 
Court Management System are now becoming clear to all of the criminal justice 
departments. Such a system will allow court and evidentiary documents to be imaged 
and stored remotely, at once available to District Attorneys and Public Defenders alike. 
It will greatly simplify the discovery process, allowing for an automated exchange of 
information between departments; it will increase efficiency within all of the criminal 
justice departments, putting at our fingertips information that has long been the province 
of store rooms and paper files. 

At long last, it now appears that criminal justice systems will have a chance to choose a 
vendor (vendors) that can build a new CMS. It is, however, essential that the momentum 
be maintained to that end. 



10- 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT, 2000 

III. Office Jurisdiction 

The Public Defender's Office is mandated in the Charter of the City and County of San 
Francisco. Section 6.103 of the Charter provides that the Public Defender shall "upon the 
request of an accused who is financially unable to employ counsel. . . defend or give 
counsel or advice to any person charged with the commission of a crime or in danger of 
criminal prosecution." 

In addition to this specific grant of power, section 27706 of the California Government 
Code sets forth the types of cases which can be handled by a County Public Defender. 
They include: 

1) Criminal cases upon request of the defendant or appointment by the court 

2) Contempt cases 

3) Criminal Appeals 

4) Cases involving mental health guardianships and conservatorships 

5) Juvenile cases 



-11 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT, 2000 

IV. Office Structure, Staff, Budget, and Caseload 

Structure 

The executive officer of the Public Defender's office is the Public Defender. The Public 
Defender is elected every four years by popular vote. The Public Defender appoints all 
Deputy Public Defenders and an Executive Secretary. These employees serve at his 
pleasure. The balance of the staff, which includes investigators, secretaries, and other 
support personnel, are subject to Civil Service rules. 

The Chief Attorney is the second Executive Officer of the department. The Chief 
Attorney is the person to whom all other supervisors directly report. The Chief Attorney 
is the acting Public Defender, should the Public Defender be out of state. 

There are eight administrative units in the Public Defender's office. They are: 

1) Felony Unit : 2 Supervising Attorneys and 44 Line Attorneys 

2) Misdemeanor Unit : 2 Supervising Attorneys and 19 Line Attorneys 

3) Juvenile Unit : 1 Supervising Attorney, 5 Line Attorneys, 1 Social Worker, and 1 
investigator 

4) Mental Health Unit : 2 Attorneys and 2 Investigators 

5) Investigative Unit : 1 Supervising Attorney and 1 1 Investigators 



6) Research Unit : 1 Supervising Attorney, 3 Attorneys, and 2 Research Clerks 

7) Administrative Unit : Public Defender, Chief Attorney, Executive Secretary, Senior 
Accountant 

8) Special Programs Unit : One attorney assigned to Drug and Mentor Court; one 
attorney assigned the expungement program; one Substance Abuse Treatment 
Specialist assigned to the alternative sentencing project. 



12 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT, 2000 



Org Chart 




13 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT, 2000 



Staff 



The Public Defender employs 17 staff members whose work keeps the office running 

effectively: 

1 1 clerical workers 

2 telephone operators 

3 word processors 

1 computer technician 

Attorney Diversity 

The Public Defender's Office represents a great number of individuals from varied ethnic 
and cultural backgrounds. The presence of attorneys from similar ethnic, social, and 
economic backgrounds as the client strengthens the attorney-client relationship by 
developing a higher level of trust. Furthermore, such presence is a statement of the 
office's strong commitment to equal opportunity. At the current time, 50% of the 
attorneys are of minority ethnic groups and 50% are women. The San Francisco Public 
Defender takes pride in the diversity of the Deputy Public Defenders employed at the 
office. 

Interns 

Each-sem es ter a nd s ummer the office enjoys and relies upon the hard work of interns 



from law schools around the Bay area and the country. Interns interview clients and 
witnesses, perform legal research and writing, visit scenes of alleged crime, assist in the 
courtroom, and assist in analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of a case. Some interns 
are certified by the State Bar of California and appear in court as counsel, supervised by 
an office attorney. We are grateful for their hard work and dedication, without which our 
office would be less effective. 

We supervise approximately 40 interns during each of the school semesters and another 
90 interns over the summer. 



- 14- 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT, 2000 



Budget and Program Costs 

The revised budget for the Office of the Public Defender, Fiscal Year 1999-2000, is 
$12,162, 725. The budget has grown each year for the last ten by an average of 
approximately 5%, largely reflecting cost of living adjustments to salaries and the 
creation of several new attorney and support positions as the caseload of the office has 
grown. 

More than 80% of the budget of the Office of the Public Defender goes to personnel 
costs. The approximate personnel costs of each unit or division during Fiscal Year 1999- 
2000 are represented in the charts below. 







8% 5% 

\ / M*SJ54% 

i6%\y 4 1^ 


□ Administrative 

■ Felony 

□ Misdemeanor 

□ Juvenile 

■ Mental Health 

□ Research 

■ Support 







Most of the remainder of the office's budget goes towards court fees, rents and leases on 
the office, and supplies. 



15 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT, 2000 

Caseload 

The San Francisco Public Defender handled 22,509 cases in Calendar Year 1999. The 
broad categories of cases are portrayed in the table below: 



Felony Arraignment 


5615 


Felony Motions to Revoke 


3204 


Misdemeanor Arraignment 


7323 


Misdemeanor Motions to Revoke 


1161 


Juvenile 


902 


Mental Health 


4304 



There is a general consistency to the proportion of cases handled by the office year to 
year, as indicated in the graph below: 




CY CY CY CY 
1996 1997 1998 1999 



El Mental Health 

■ Juvenile 

□ Misdemeanor 
MTR 

□ Misdemeanor 
Arraignment 

■ Felony MTR 

m Felony 
Arraignment 



The 64 attorneys in the felony and misdemeanor units carried 17,303 cases in 1999, for 
an average of caseload of 270 cases per attorney. 

Most cases are resolved without trial. Of the 12,938 new arraignments in 1999, only 141 
went to trial. 



-16- 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT, 2000 



V. Departmental Units 



A) Felony Unit 

The Felony Unit handles cases for defendant-clients who are faced with potential state 
prison sentences. In fact, in a limited number of cases, the potential sentence could be 
death. The Public Defender is appointed at arraignment - the first appearance of the 
defendant - to represent a person accused. After that appearance, the office assigns an 
attorney from the staff to handle the client's case to its conclusion. 

Many of the felony cases are motions to revoke probation. In a typical such situation, the 
District Attorney or the Probation Department alleges that the defendant violated 
probation that was granted at sentencing in an earlier felony case. The allegation of a 
violation can be that the defendant failed to comply with some condition of probation, or 
that he in fact committed a new criminal offense - the motion to revoke serves as a 
"substitute trial", in that the District Attorney can secure the probationer's return to 
prison through the summary process of probation revocation, rather than a new criminal 
trial. The prosecutorial advantages are clear - the motion to revoke will be heard by a 
judge, not a jury, and will pass without trial or other due process safeguards that would be 
afforded a defendant in a criminal case. 



Motions to revoke represent a growing part of the District Attorney's arsenal, and as such 
a growing part of the Felony Unit's caseload. 



-17- 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT, 2000 

The below charts show an inter-year comparison of the felony cases handled by the 
Public Defender from calendar years 1996 through 1999. 





1996 


1997 


1998 


1999 


New Felony Cases 


5914 


5772 


4567 


5615 


Felony Motions to Revoke 


2145 


2205 


2267 


3204 


Total 


8059 


7977 


6834 


8819 



10000 
8000 
6000 
4000 
2000 




^+* 



■ Felony Motions to 
Re\£>ke 

□ New Felony 
Cases 



CY CY CY CY 
1996 1997 1998 1999 



"New felony cases" represent the number of cases the Public Defender is appointed to 
defend at the arraignment. From that point on, the Public Defender will be responsible 
for legal counsel of the person accused. 



"Felony Motions to Revoke" are cases where the District Attorney or the Probation 
Department moves to revoke a current probation in the Superior Court. 
Although the Felony Unit handled 5615 felony clients facing prosecutions, only 41 
resulted injury trials. 

The vast number of felony cases are disposed of through pleas of guilty for a reduced 
sentence, pleas to misdemeanors, or are discharged after a probable cause hearing. Less 
than 5% on any given year of cases set for trial will be tried before a jury. 



-li 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT, 2000 



B) Misdemeanor Unit 



The Misdemeanor Unit covers 6 misdemeanor departments of the Superior Court 
representing clients in cases that carry a maximum possible sentence of one year in the 
county jail. The below charts show an inter-year comparison of the misdemeanor cases 
handled by the Public Defender from calendar years 1996 through 1999 





1996 


1997 


1998 


1999 


New Misdemeanor Cases 


7433 


7704 


7950 


7323 


Misdemeanor Motions to Revoke 


973 


1175 


1156 


1161 


Total 


8406 


8879 


9106 


8484 



10000 -i 
8000 - 


■ m w ■ 


6000 - 


















— 


4000 - 


















— 


2000 - 


















— 


- 






i 




i 




i 







■ Misdemeanor 
Motions to Revoke 

□ New Misdemeanor 
Cases 



CY CY CY CY 
1996 1997 1998 1999 



The Misdemeanor Unit tried 100 cases in 1999. 



19 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT, 2000 

C) Juvenile Unit 

The Juvenile Unit has the responsibility of representing minors charged in the Juvenile 
Court. Representation of juveniles involves defending them against charges that would 
constitute crimes if committed by adults. Juveniles can also be charged with non- 
criminal behavior such as truancy and ungovernability. In such cases, the public 
defender represents the minors in "status offense" proceedings which are brought 
pursuant to Section 601 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. 

Representation of juveniles is a delicate and complex matter. Juvenile court proceedings 
are adversarial proceedings which require the utmost from Juvenile Unit attorneys. The 
attorneys must not only use their talents to present factual and legal defenses for their 
young clients, but must also be sensitive to the special problems facing youthful 
offenders. Thus, Juvenile Unit attorneys must be able to identify emotional and 
educational difficulties of their clients in order to explore alternative forms of treatment 
outside the legal system. In doing so, they utilize the many community-based agencies 
which provide social or psychiatric assistance. 

The Juvenile Unit represented juveniles in 902 cases in 1999. 



-20- 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT, 2000 

D) Mental Health Unit 

The Mental Health Unit is composed of two attorneys and is assisted by two 
investigators. The unit represents persons subject both to civil and criminal aspects of 
mental health law. 

Civil Division 

A person who is found, as a result of mental disorder, to be gravely disabled, or a danger 
to self or others, is subject to the legal mechanism of civil commitment, known as a 
Lanterman-Petris- Short conservatorship proceeding. Within the context of a given 
conservatorship, there can be a variety of hearings to assess ongoing commitment status 
and the capacity of the individual to give or withhold consent to medication and other 
therapeutic regimens. 

Because of the depravation of liberty inherent in civil commitment, the Public Defender 
is mandated by California Government Code section 27706 and other statutory provisions 
to represent indigent persons subject to conservatorship and other civil commitment 
proceedings. The Public Defender also is mandated by law to prepare petitions for writs 
of habeas corpus when requested by persons seeking release from involuntary 
confinement and to represent persons in those proceedings. 



The civil division of the Mental Health Unit is unique in occupying a position not only of 
advocacy but also of stewardship; while tasked with defending clients who wish to defeat 
conservatorship, there are also clients who accept conservatorship but present issues 
regarding their ongoing psychiatric care and medical treatment. As regards these clients, 
the Mental Health Unit seeks to enforce, through various legal mechanisms, rights to 
treatment services which promote the potential of the person to function independently 
and for treatment which is provided in ways that are least restrictive of the personal 
liberty of the individual. 



21- 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT, 2000 



Civil Mental Health Caseload, 1999 



Probable Cause Hearings 


1750 


Medication Competency Hearings 


253 


Writs of Habeas Corpus 


142 


New Conservatorships 


313 


Conservatorship Renewals 


541 


Re-Hearings 


81 


Medical Consents 


26 


Hearings on Shock Therapy 


29 


Hearings to Change Conservators 


3 


Placement Hearings 


4 


Hearings on Capacity for Medical Care and Psychotropic Medication 


1162 


Total 


4304 



Criminal Division 

The criminal division of the Mental Health Unit of the Public Defender's Office 
represents persons who have been found not guilty by reason of insanity on writs and 
proceedings for Conditional Leave, Conditional Release, revocation of outpatient status, 
extension of commitment of inpatient or outpatient status, and restoration of sanity. It 
represents those clients at every stage of the proceedings. 



22 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT, 2000 



Relevant Trends 

Changes in the procedural laws of conservatorship has led to an increase in the number of 
conservatorship cases, now approximately 45 a month up from 30 a month 5 years ago. 

There is a general state legislative agenda to expand the available criteria for involuntary 
confinement. In this legislative session, this agenda finds form in AB 1 800, a bill 
proposing broad modification of the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act which governs 
involuntary detention. Passage of AB 1800 can be expected to significantly impact 
Mental Health services in San Francisco, a city with a higher prevalence of serious 
psychiatric disorders than California overall (Katz, MD Mitchell, "1999 State of the City 
Public Health Address," May 10, 1999). 



23- 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT, 2000 



E) Investigative Unit 

The Investigative Unit works with the trial attorneys to develop information relevant to 
the defense of a client. While "investigation" encompasses a wide range of tasks, the 
bulk of the activity centers around conducting interviews; locating witnesses; serving 
subpoenas; photographing crime scenes; and debriefing with attorneys. 

The Investigative Unit is composed of 14 investigators and a supervising attorney. Two 
of the investigators are assigned to the Mental Health Unit; one is assigned to the 
Juvenile Unit; the remainder work with the Misdemeanor and Felony Units, with a single 
investigator typically being assigned to a team of attorneys. 

The below tables highlight the work of the 9 investigators assigned to the Felony and 
Misdemeanor Units for fiscal year 1999-2000: 



Interviews 


930 


Subpoenas 


450 


Oral Reports 


676 


Written Reports 


380 











Written 






Reports 






1R°/ 

° xT^sk ' nterv i ews 






Oral (Qn 38% 






Reports V^/ 






28% Subpoenas 






18% 





24 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT, 2000 

F) Research Unit 

The Research Unit is currently staffed by three deputies and one supervisor, and assisted 
by two research clerks. Their duties include preparing motions, writ petitions, and 
appellate briefs for the trial deputies in the Office. In addition, they participate in 
providing training, they respond to oral requests for research and advice, and create and 
maintain the Office's Intranet. 

Research Unit Statistics for June - December 1999 



Document 


Total 


Notes 


Motions 


38 


995s: 32; others: 6 


Memoranda 


41 




Writs 


16 


Misdemeanor: 4 (3 to Appel. Div.; 1 to Ct of Appeal; 2 granted, 1 pending) 
Felony: 8 (0 granted; 1 pending) 
Juvenile: 5(1 granted) 


Misd. Appeals 


4 


DA appeals (1 affirmed; reversed; 3 pending) 


Quick Questions 


160 


These are oral requests for advice, research, etc. Some can be 
answered immediately, others require some research. 



25- 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT, 2000 

G) Administrative Unit 

The Administrative Unit is composed of the Public Defender, the Chief Attorney, an 
executive secretary, and a senior accountant. 

The Public Defender is the executive officer of the department. In that capacity, he has 
ultimate responsibility for the operations of the department. Every appointment, whether 
discretionary or civil service, is made by him. All decisions relating to promotions or 
discipline are subject to his discretion. On a day-to-day basis he is involved in 
developing and overseeing the implementation of policy for the department. The Public 
Defender is the spokesperson for the department and the liaison with other official 
offices. 

The Chief Attorney is responsible for managing the internal workings of the office; for 
planning and implementation of the department's budget; and for overseeing the annual 
employee evaluation process. 



-26- 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT, 2000 

VI. Programs 

A) Drug Court 

Drug Court is a diversionary program created pursuant to Penal Code §1000.5, which 
provides a regimen of treatment rather than incarceration to eligible defendants with 
substance abuse issues. Participants are closely supervised by the court, and are required 
to attend a treatment program, undergo urinalysis on a thrice-weekly basis, and appear in 
court regularly. The program lasts a minimum of one year. At successful completion of 
the program, the defendant's case is dismissed. 

One attorney in the Public Defender's office is assigned to the Drug Court program. The 
program has 295 participants at the time of this writing, all of whom are represented by 
the Public Defender's Office. The program has a recidivism rate of 5%. 

Relevant Trends 

There are more than 4,000 municipal drug court programs around the country. San 
Francisco's program is 5 years old, and is expanding. There is a push at both the State 
and Federal level to expand funding for such programs, and we can expect the caseload to 
increase as the national trend towards diversion continues. 



B) Mentor Court 

Mentor Court is a diversion program procedurally similar to Drug Court, but aimed at 18- 
25 year-old's who are selling rather than using drugs. The program seeks to mentor the 
defendant's through a 1-year program of structured education and court supervision, 
designed to provide economic alternatives to drug sales. 



27- 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT, 2000 

There are 60+ clients in Mentor Court at any given time. One attorney from the Public 
Defender's office manages the Mentor Court caseload. 

C) Drug Diversion 

Drug Diversion is a program created pursuant to Penal Code §1000.3 that is managed by 
the probation department. As the name implies, it is a diversion program available to 
first time offenders charged with a variety of drug possession charges. Currently, the 
Drug Diversion program has about 900 clients, each of whom is subject to drug 
education, treatment, or rehabilitation as appropriate in a regimen lasting 6 months, after 
which their arrest is expunged. Individual Public Defenders refer cases to the program 
and monitor progress initially, after which they are added to the Drug Court caseload. 

D) Operation Clean Slate 

The Public Defender's office operates a program to encourage the expungement of 
criminal records for those who qualify. Participants must meet the financial eligibility 
standards of the Public Defender's Office, and must have committed an eligible offense, 
typically juvenile or marijuana possession cases; felonies for which probation was the 
punishment; arrest or detention without conviction; or narcotics offenses for which the 
convicted clientJias_compleied a program of rehabilitation. 



The Public Defender guides the client through the process of obtaining copies of their 
criminal records and filing the appropriate papers with the court. In this fashion, the 
Office is equipped to help as many as 1,000 people each year to truly put a criminal 
record behind them. 



-28 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT, 2000 

E) Alternative Sentencing Project 

The interests of justice sometimes dictate that treatment rather than jail is an appropriate 
sentence for a convicted defendant. The Office of the Public Defender has a Substance 
Abuse Treatment Specialist who works to interview, diagnose, and assess clients for 
appropriate alternative sentencing. In addition, the specialist works to coordinate 
services among the more than 50 local treatment centers providing services in lieu of jail 
time. The specialist also works to educate the office and the courts on the reality of drug 
dependency and the propriety of alternative sentencing for many offenders. 

Relevant Trends 

Although the Sheriff shares an interest in diverting non- violent drug offenders from 
scarce jail beds, diminishing funding at the State and National level work to reduce the 
number of alternative programs available. Additionally, a "tough on crime" mentality 
can make judges and prosecutors resistant to alternative sentencing, even when treatment 
is a more appropriate solution than incarceration. 



29- 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT, 2000 

VII. Office Development and Training 

Grants 

Under the leadership of Chief Attorney Jeffrey Adachi, the Office of the Public Defender 
has applied for and received several grants, securing services for the people of San 
Francisco at no cost to the City. These grants include: 

Support Position for Operation Clean Slate - this program, created in 1999, operates 
to provide San Francisco residents with legal services needed to clear their criminal 
history, i.e. adult and juvenile expungements, filing certificates of rehabilitation, and 
clearing arrest records. This year, we received $63,970 from Block Grant IV to hire a 
full time Criminal Justice Specialist to provide services to 500-1,000 people annually. 

- Equipment for New Attorney Positions - In October of 1999, 8 felony attorney 
positions were added to the Public Defender's office to handle 1,200 felony cases 
previously assigned to private counsel. This grant provides funds to equip those 
attorneys with the tools they need to effectively do their jobs - Desks, Computers, 
Printers, and legal research software, one time expenditures totaling $131,870. 
Civil Attorney for Juvenile proceedings - thanks to a grant of $67,944 the office was 
able to fund an attorney for the 99-00 year to reduce the caseload of the Juvenile Unit 
to 166 cases per attorney, down from an unacceptable level of 200 cases per year. 

- Paralegal for Juvenile proceedings - a grant of $44,044 enabled the office to fund a 
legal assistant to provide additional help in reducing the case burden of the Juvenile 
Unit. 



Treatment Specialist for alternative drug programs - the office received a grant of 
$63,970 to fund an attorney to assist in managing the cases of those clients accepted 
in Drug Court or court-ordered drug counseling programs. 
- Major Felonies Unit - the office received a three-year grant of $98,857 to help fund a 
Senior Attorney and an investigator, with the goal of enabling us to reduce the 
disparity between prosecutorial and defense resources caused by the explosion of 
major felony prosecutions against indigents in the last several years. 

Overall, the office has raised more than $470,000 in grants. 



30- 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT, 2000 



Training 

The Office of the Public Defender is proud of the high level of in-house training provided 
to our attorneys. The office is a state-approved provider of training for specialization in 
Criminal Law, and has been able to confer the title of Certified Specialist in Criminal 
Law on more than a dozen attorneys. 

The Office is also an approved provider of MCLE (Mandatory Continuing Legal 
Education) courses for our attorneys. Regular skill building seminars are held covering 
topics ranging from trial skills to motion writing. 

The Office of the Public Defender provides more training to its attorneys on a wider 
variety of topics than at any time in our history. We are producing diligent, talented 
attorneys whose skills continue to improve as does their value to the residents of San 
Francisco. 



-31- 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER - ANNUAL REPORT, 2000 

Appendix 

This report was produced by Ian Booth Kelley in June 2000, on a summer apprenticeship 
from the New College of California School of Law. All errors and omissions are his 
own. Jeff Brown contributed much of the narrative. Jeff Adachi, Robin Levine, and 
Grace Suarez provided editorial support. Thanks are due the many members of the 
Public Defender's office who provided needed information in the development of this 
report. 

All data are for calendar years unless otherwise noted. 

Statistics are approximate and some rounding has been employed for readability. Those 
requiring precise statistics should consult the San Francisco Court Management System, 
which holds the data warehouse from which these statistics were derived. 



-32- 



)-01 

L 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER 

City and County of San Francisco 

ANNUAL REPORT 

Fiscal Year 2000-2001 




DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
AUG 1 9 2002 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Kimiko Burton 
Public Defender 
Randall Martin 
Chief Attorney 



Message from the Public Defender 

We are pleased to present the Annual Report for the Office of the Public 
Defender for FY 2000/01. 

We appreciate your onsoins support to meet our constitutional 
mandate to provide hish-quality services to those unable to afford legal 
representation. Through this report, we hope you learn more about our 
Office and the work we did during the past fiscal year. 

The needs of our clients have always been our top priority and this year 
we found new and better ways to serve those clients and the City of 
San Francisco, including strengthening our skills and collaborating with 
other City agencies and private organizations. This report highlights some 
of those changes. 



Respectfully submitted, 

Kimiko Burton 
Public Defender 




Our Mission 

The mission of the Public Defender's Office is to deliver competent, effective and ethical legal 
representation to indigent persons accused of crimes or involved in mental health proceedings 
in San Francisco. 



Our Organization 



Accounting 



Finance 8> Planning 



Misdemeanor 
Unit 



Felony 
Unit 



Public 
Defender 



Chief Attorney 



Juvenile 
Unit 



Executive Assistant 



Telephone 


Word 
Processing 


Clerical 



Mental Health 
Unit 



Research Unit 



Investigation Unit 



The Office of the Public Defender has 116 net operating positions, with personnel assigned to 
the various units as set forth in Figure 1 . 



Figure 1 : Distribution of Personnel by Unit, FY 2000/01 

Investigative 



Support 

14% 
Administration 

2% 

Grant Projects 
6% 

Research 

3% Juvenile 
7% 
Source: Department Records 



Misdemeanor 
12% 




Mental Health 
3% 



Felony 
43% 



Some Statistics 

The Public Defender's Office represents indisent clients throughout all stages of the criminal 
justice process, from arraignment through disposition. Cases are resolved through trials, 
negotiated guilty pleas, and dismissals. The statistics provided here demonstrate the cumulative 
workload of our attorneys and staff during FY 2000/01 . Due to the increasing complexity of our 
cases, higher or lower figures should not be interpreted as a greater or lesser workload - a case 
may be resolved with one court appearance or may take many months to conclude. Similarly, 
effective representation may involve anything from a single brief court appearance, to the filing of 
a few motions, to a case the size and complexity of which calls for the full-time assignment of a 
seasoned public defender. 

Felonies: A felony is an offense carrying a possible state prison sentence, generally exceeding 
one year, including, for example, drug sales, robbery, sexual assault, and homicide. In this report, 
we track two categories of adult felony cases: (1) new felony cases, where a Deputy Public 
Defender represents a client charged with the commission of a felony offense; and (2) felony 
motions to revoke probation (MTRs), where a Deputy Public Defender represents a client 
previously convicted of a felony offense, who is now charged with violating the terms and 
conditions of their probation by suffering a new arrest or failing to comply with reporting, 
counseling or other requirements of probation. 

In FY 2000/01, we handled 5,304 adult felony cases, an 11% decrease from the FY 1999/00 
figure of 5,936. Of these 5,304 felony cases, 4,204, or 79%, were new felony cases, and the 
balance, 1,100, or 21%, were felony MTRs. Figure 1 shows the adult felony cases, by type, for 
FYs 1999-2001. 



6,000 
5,000 
4,000 
3,000 
2,000 
1,000 




Figure 2: Felony Cases by Type, FYs 1999-2001 



4,535 



4,204 




1999/00 2000/01 
New Felonies 
Source: Court Management System 



1,401 



1,100 




1999/00 2000/01 
Felony MTRs 



Misdemeanors: A misdemeanor is an offense carrying a maximum sentence of one year or less 
in the county jail, including, for example, prostitution, driving under the influence, and vandalism. 
As with felonies, in this report we track two categories of adult misdemeanor cases: (1) new 
misdemeanor cases, where a Deputy Public Defender represents a client charged with the 
commission of a misdemeanor offense; and (2) misdemeanor motions to revoke probation 
(MTRs), where a Deputy Public Defender represents a client previously convicted of a 
misdemeanor offense, who is now charged with violating the terms and conditions of their 
probation by suffering a new arrest or failing to comply with reporting, counseling or other 
requirements of probation. 

During FY 2000/01, our attorneys handled 20,169 adult misdemeanor cases, a 4% decrease 
from the FY 1999/00 figure of 21, 037. 1 Figure 2 shows the adult misdemeanor cases, by type, 
for FYs 1999-2001. 



Figure 3: Misdemeanor Cases by Type, FYs 1999-2001 



25,000 

20,000 

15,000 

10,000 

5,000 



1999/00 2000/01 
New Misdemeanors 

Source: Court Management System 



19,079 


18,392 








i 














1,958 


1,777 



1999/00 2000/01 
Misdemeanor MTRs 



Mental Health: We represent clients in conservatorships, involuntary confinements, transitions 
from the criminal justice system into the mental health system, and litigation following not-guilty- 
by-reason-of-insanity judgments. During FY 2000/01, we represented 2,989 mental health clients, 
a 1 4.7% increase over FY 1 999-00's figure of 2,605. Figure 3 shows the number of Mental Health 
cases for FYs 1999-2001. 



The FY 2001/02 budget incorrectly reported 9,203 misdemeanor matters for FY 1999/00. 





Figure 4: Mental Health Cases, FYs 1999-2001 


4,000 - 
^ nnn 




2,605 2 ' 989 


2,000 - 


















1,000 


















n 












u 


1999/00 2000/01 


Sol 


rce: Department Records 



Juveniles: In Juvenile Court, we represent youths charged with conduct that would constitute 
crimes if committed by adults, and with non-criminal charges such as truancy or "beyond 
parental control." Our caseload of juvenile clients grew in FY 2000/01, increasing from 1,327 in 
FY 1999/00 to 1,382 in this fiscal year, a 4.1% rise. Midway through the fiscal year we made 
concrete improvements in the delivery of services to our young clients. We increased the 
number of attorneys assigned to the juvenile division and ensured that they were all experienced 
felony attorneys. In addition, we dre proud to have established during FY 2000/01 many new 
collaborations with other agencies to help our young clients (see Juvenile Justice Collaborations, 
below). Figure 4 shows the number of Juvenile clients we represented during FYs 1999-2001 . 



2,000 

1,500 

1,000 

500 





Figure 5: Juvenile Cases, FYs 1999-2001 



1,327 



1,382 





1999/00 
Source: Department Records 



2000/01 



Juvenile Justice Collaborations 

To effectively implement our mission, it is vital that we work collaboratively with other asencies. 
In this report, we hishlight those new partnerships created during FY 2000/01 to serve our City's 
youth. 

Education Advocacy Panel: In order to address the long unmet educational needs of our 
young clients, the Office of the Public Defender has collaborated with the Pacific Juvenile 
Defender Center, the Bar Association of San Francisco, Legal Services for Children and countless 
dedicated legal volunteers. We dre developing a panel of legal volunteers who will be trained 
to partner with the lawyers in our juvenile division to provide enhanced educational advocacy 
for our young clients to ensure that their special needs are identified and met. Because the 
attorneys in our office typically have little training in the educational arena, we found this to be an 
excellent opportunity to involve volunteer attorneys from the private bar in the representation of 
our clients. 

We are grateful to have Molly Dunn, the recipient of a fellowship from the prestigious Equal 
Justice Works, serve as our Education Advocate for the next two years. She provides special 
advocacy services and seeks rehabilitative alternatives for children facing increasingly harsh 
penalties of school disciplinary and delinquency proceedings. 



Improving On What We Do 

Many of our attorneys and staff have been working in the Office for several years and are 
recognized experts in criminal defense. We value the expertise they bring, and we look for 
opportunities to share their wisdom and experience with newer members of our team. We also 
want to ensure that our clients receive the benefit of a well-trained and qualified team, whether 
that be our attorneys, investigative and administrative staff or contract employees. Below, we 
describe some of the steps taken during FY 2000/01 to improve on what we do: 

Support for our attorneys: This year, we instituted two new efforts to ensure our attorneys get 
support for their often complex and stressful work. In caseload conferencing, Deputy Public 
Defenders meet with their supervisors each quarter to discuss their caseloads and determine 
whether, given the attorney's experience and skill level, any changes should be made. In case 
conferencing, attorneys meet with their supervisors and peers each month to discuss their cases.- 
strategies, procedures, and recommendations are reviewed. Much like hospital "grand rounds," 
these discussions provide occasions for novice and experienced attorneys to seek guidance 
and technical assistance. 



Continuing education: We offer our Deputy Public Defenders numerous opportunities 
throushout the year to increase their professional expertise by offerins educational seminars., 
topics covered included computer trainins, forensic issues, search warrants, and insanity pleas. 
Not only do these mini-courses provide excellent trainins to our staff, but they also serve as 
State Bar-approved Minimum Continuins Legal Education courses, which benefit Public 
Defenders and members of the San Francisco Bar Association's Conflicts Panel. 

Trial Skills Training: During FY 2000/01, attorney and Stanford Law School Lecturer Timothy 
Hallahan provided small-group training to our attorneys, where mock complex cases are played 
out and the attorneys' performance is reviewed on videotape and constructively critiqued by 
their peers and supervisors. These sessions strengthen professional skills and encourage 
teamwork among our attorneys. We developed training programs for both entry-level 
misdemeanor attorneys and attorneys new to the felony unit. 



Finances 



Figure 6: Resources by Source, FY 2000/01 





State 




Private 


1% 


Federal 


<1% 




4% 



General Fund 
95% 

Source: Financial Accounting Management Information System 



Figure 7: Expenditures by Type, FY 2000/01 



Services of 

Other 
Departments 

3% 
Capital 

1% 
Experts 

2% 




Personnel 
86% 



Interpreters g% LawLibrary 

I/O 00/ 



2% 
Source: Financial Accounting Management Information System 



How to Contact Us 



AAAIN OFFICE (415)553-1671 

Internet www.sfqov.org/pd 

Juvenile Division (415) 753-7600 

Drug Court Attorney (415) 553-931 6 

Mentor Court Attorney (41 5) 553-9337 

Operation Clean Slate (415) 553-9337 



Office Locations and Hours 

Office of the Public Defender 

555 Seventh Street 

San Francisco, CA 94103 

8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday-Friday 



Office of the Public Defender - Juvenile Division 

375 Woodside Avenue 

San Francisco, CA 94127 

8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday-Friday 



SF 

P65 

#1 

2001-02 



OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER 
City and County of San Francisco 
ANNUAL REPORT 
Fiscal Year 2001-2002 




Kimiko Burton 
Public Defender 
Randall Martin 
Chief Attorney 



Message from the Public Defender 



I am pleased to present the Annual Report for the Office of the 
Public Defender for fiscal year 2001/02. It has been my honor to 
serve as Public Defender for the City and County of San Francisco, 
the city in which I was born and raised. My family instilled in me a 
strons commitment to public service and from the time I was very 
young, I learned the importance of fighting for principal and what 
is right and of making sure that the least fortunate among us is not 
forgotten. 

The lawyers and staff in this office make those ideals a reality every 
day. They uphold the Constitution and balance the scales of 
justice for those who cannot afford to pay for legal 
representation. Each time an attorney enters a courtroom, they 
effectively represent two clients, the individual with whom they 
stand, and our constitutional democracy. 




While the work we do has never been what one might consider popular, since 9/1 1 , it has 
become even more challenging. In the name of National Security and fighting terrorism, certain 
elements particularly within the federal government are doing their best to eviscerate the 
Constitution. It is during times like these that the work of this office and other Public Defenders 
offices around the country becomes even more important. We must be vigilant in protecting 
our rights and continue to require the checks and balances that make our system the best it 
can be. 

I am extremely proud of the work done by the lawyers, investigators and support staff in this 
office. The last year has been a challenging one, yet they have persevered and continued to 
provide quality representation to our clients. With this administration, the clients always come 
first, for it is they, not the attorneys, who will suffer consequences if convicted. We have 
successfully tried cases and have continued to seek alternatives to incarceration such as drug 
treatment and job training. We are fortunate to be in a jurisdiction where the District Attorney 
understands the importance of giving people charged with non-violent offenses a second 
chance and not recycling addicts through the revolving door of prison. 

On a personal note, I take this opportunity to thank the management team of this office for 
their dedication and hard work. Chief attorney Randall Martin is a 25 year veteran of this office 
and one of the best trial attorneys we have. Prior to being named Chief Attorney, he 
specialized in representing mentally ill homicide clients. As a woman, I took great pride not 
only in being the first woman Public Defender in the 80-year history of the office, but in 
appointing the first woman felony supervisor. Susan Kaplan enjoys a superb reputation as a 
trial attorney and has been a wonderful supervisor. 

DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

JAN 1 4 2003 



SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



-1 - 



Leland Davis III, also a seasoned veteran and sifted trial attorney has been an excellent 
supervisor and resource for the office. Chris Gauger has supervised both the research division 
and the misdemeanor unit with tremendous skill. Lisa DewBerry has been tremendously helpful 
with the juvenile and misdemeanor units as well as every other assignment she has been given. 
Patricia Lee has been a very talented leader for the juvenile division. She spent many years as 
a line attorney there and developed into a wonderful manager. Patrick Leary, the first 
investigator to head up that division in two decades, did an incredible job balancing 
administration and his own cases. I also thank Jamie Austin, the office's first financial 
professional, and Deborah Walters, the supervisor of the clerical unit, for their hard work and 
professionalism. 

In the end, it is the clients who matter first and last. 

Respectfully submitted this 31 st day of December 2002. 



K^Jlo 



Kimiko Burton 

Public Defender 

City and County of San Francisco 



-2 



Our Mission 

The mission of the Public Defender's Office is to deliver competent, effective and ethical legal 
representation to indigent persons accused of crimes or involved in mental health 
proceedings in San Francisco. 

Our Organization 



Accounting 



Finance 6? Planning 



Public 
Defender 



Chief Attorney 



Misdemeanor 
Unit 



Felony 
Unit 



Juvenile 
Unit 



Executive Assistant 









1 










Telephone 


Word 
Processing 


Clerical 












Research Unit 


u . . 




(wenrai neaim 
Unit 




Investigation Unit 



The Office of the Public Defender has 11 6 net operating positions, with personnel assigned to 
the various units as set forth in Figure 1 . 



Figure 1: Distribution of Personnel by Unit, FY 2001/02 



Support Investigative 

15% ■ 10% 

Administration 
2% 



Grant Projects 
6% 



Research 

3% 



Source: Department Records 



Misdemeanor 
12% 




Felony 
42% 



-3 



Introduction 

During fiscal year 2001/02, the Public Defender's Office represented nearly 30,000 indigent 
clients throughout all stages of the criminal justice process, from arraignment through 
disposition. Cases were resolved through trials, negotiated dispositions, and dismissals. 

Due to the increasing complexity of our cases, moderately higher or lower figures should not 
be interpreted as a greater or lesser workload. Some cases may be resolved with just one 
court appearance, while others may take many months to conclude. Effective representation 
of a client may require only a single, brief court appearance, the filing of a few motions, or the 
full-time assignment of a seasoned attorney for very serious and complex cases. 

This report describes the work and workload of the various units of the Office and provides 
statistics, which demonstrate the cumulative workload of our attorneys and staff during FY 
2001/02, as well as historical comparisons, based upon reports provided by the Court 
Management System (CMS), the integrated criminal justice data management system. Graphs 
present the data throughout this annual report and the underlying data appears in the 
appendix. 



The Felony Unit 

A felony is an offense carrying a possible state prison sentence, generally exceeding one year, 
including, for example, drug sales, robbery, sexual assault, and homicide. 

The felony unit of the Public Defender's Office is supervised by two seasoned and well- 
regarded trial lawyers - Susan Kaplan and Leland Davis, III - and consists of thirty-two attorneys 
assigned to four felony intake (preliminary hearing courts - Departments 9, 1 0, 1 1, and 1 2) and 
six attorneys assigned to specialty courts and special assignments. 

In this report, we track two categories of adult felony cases: (1 ) unadjudicated felony cases, in 
which a Deputy Public Defender represents a client charged with the commission of a felony 
offense from arraignment, the first court appearance after arrest, through trial and sentencing; 
and (2) felony motions to revoke probation (MTRs), in which a Deputy Public Defender 
represents a client previously convicted of a felony offense, who is now charged with violating 
the terms and conditions of their probation by suffering a new arrest or failing to comply with 
reporting, counseling or other requirements of probation. Generally, effective representation 
of clients at MTRs is less time-consuming than preparation for trial in an unadjudicated case. 



-4- 



During FY 2001/2002, our felony unit handled 5,595 adult felony cases, a 5.5% increase from 
the FY 2000/01 figure of 5,304. Of these 5,595 felony cases, 5,097, or 91%, were 
unadjudicated felony cases, and the balance, 1,147, or 9%, were felony MTRs. A case is 
counted if there is at least one court appearance in the case during the fiscal year. 

Unadjudicated Felonies: Figure 2 shows the number of unadjudicated felony cases our 
attorneys handled annually since FY 1 976/77. There was a significant increase in the number of 
unadjudicated felonies between 1 984 and 1 989, concurrent with the appearance of "crack" 
cocaine. For the past ten years, the number of unadjudicated felony cases handled annually 
has remained essentially the same. 



Figure 2: Unadjudicated Felonies, FYs 1976-2002 
(Source: CMS Report #5029) 



6500 




A <b\ V\ V Vb X s&r gST <vN^ oO) <£T ^ o^T ^ <A^ gST <&? <£T qN^ <$> <$? JP <£? <&> <$? <£> ^ J$* ^ 

$ $ $ $ $> N # $> $> $> $> $> N # $> $> $> N <£> # # # # # c£> # # ^> ^ 



-5- 



Felony MTRs: Figure 3 shows the number of felony probation violation cases (MTRs) our 
attorneys handled annually since FY 1 976/77. There were few MTRs filed prior to 1 981 . The 
procedure was used increasingly throughout the 1 980s and into the 1 990s, peaking in FY 
1997/98 at 1,567. Since that time, the number of felony MTRs has declined 29%. 



2000 



Figure 3: Felony MTRs, FYs 1976-2002 
(Source: CMS Report #5029) 




A A <b A <£ % \ «£, & -fc A <£ <£ <#> <£> ,£> ^\ $, «> ^ # $> £ $> <£> -o ~\ ^ 

^ ^ ^ ^ gS^ qN^ nfl) <£T gb^ g^T gOT gA^ gfi^ flST ^ qN^ ^ ^ ^ ~CT ^ (A^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 



k^i i^b k°> ^ i^-j f^-j »^"J i^ 



J & & & & & & N <^ & &> N <3° & J &> & & & &> & & ^ ^ 



X? N~ J NT J \~ J 



Felony Caseloads: Over the past three years, the number of Public Defender felony cases 
with future court appearances scheduled has increased substantially. This increase is not the 
result of an increase in the number of felony case filings. In fact, over the past ten years, the 
number of felony arraignments (first appearances in a new felony case) has declined, from a 
peak of 7,1 19 in FY 1991/92 to just 5,084 in FY 2001/02, a 28.6% drop. 



Rather, the number of cases pending has continued to rise because cases are not being 
disposed of as quickly as they had been in the past. Cases are sometimes retained for a 
longer period of time because of the attractiveness of some of the alternative dispositions 
offered to individuals charged with non-violent crimes. San Francisco County is unusual 
because of the number of pre-plea and non-custodial dispositions offered as an alternative to 
jail and prison. San Francisco is also unusual in that the Superior Court has been willing to 
allow our attorneys adequate time needed to competently prepare cases for trial. 



With cases being continued while new cases enter the system, the court's dockets, and thus 
our felony attorneys' caseloads continue to grow. Figure 4 shows comparative numbers of 
arraignments and dispositions in Public Defender felony cases from 1 987 through 2002. The 
recent growth in the number of cases pending is directly attributable to a decline in the rate of 
case dispositions. Over the last three fiscal years 813 fewer felony cases were disposed of 
than were filed - increasing our felony attorneys' caseload by that amount. 



Figure 4: Public Defender Felonies - New Cases and Dispositions - 1987-2002 
(source: CMS Reports #5040 and 5042) 

9000 



8000 



7000 



6000 



5000 



4000 



3000 



2000 



1000 




•Arraignments 
■ Dispositions 



\<#> x<£> X<S> ^ & & & v<£ & & & & & ^ & 

N # ^ N # N # # c£> # # # # # # # j& j§> 



The Year in Review: The goal of the felony unit continues to be to provide the best ethical 
representation possible to the client accused of serious crimes, with the needs of the client 
always being the priority. Toward that end, we have continued to develop the trial skills of 
our attorneys, provided substantial support services, encouraged disposition only when 
appropriate, and participated in the development of alternative dispositions, in particular, pre- 
plea dispositions. 



We have made certain that each client in felony cases receives vertical representation (where 
the client has one attorney from beginning to end). Because vertical representation of clients 
is dependent on full staffing of the preliminary hearing courts, we made that a priority. We 
broke with past practice of having "phantom" attorneys assigned to preliminary hearing courts. 
Previously, there were many occasions where an attorney left the office or went on extended 
leave, yet her/his name continued to appear in the preliminary hearing roster, and cases 
continued to be "assigned" to that lawyer. This resulted in clients not knowing who would 
actually represent them from one appearance to the next, sometimes for weeks or months. 
Instead, we made certain that our felony unit was fully staffed and that the preliminary hearing 
courts were fully staffed so that each client has one attorney assigned to her/his case from 
beginning to end. 

We made certain that our felony lawyers are well trained. To stay current on developments in 
criminal and constitutional law, we have conducted many lecture format seminars. We also 
have provided courtroom skills training in trial practice and the law of evidence. We have held 
monthly caseload conferences for cross training and we evaluated quarterly the case loads of 
our attorneys for balance. 

Also innovative was our policy of starting attorneys new to felony practice in "protected 
caseloads" with low sentence exposure rather than to throw them in with the "sink-or-swim" 
attitude of the past. The move from misdemeanor defense, where sentences do not exceed 
one-year county jail, to felony defense, where clients face years and even life in state prison, 
can be daunting even for the most talented young attorney. With "protected caseloads," new 
felony attorneys' case assignments and caseloads were closely monitored by the unit 
supervisors. Experience over the past fiscal year has proven this practice is in the best 
interests of the clients and insures superior development of the attorneys. 

The felony unit tried many cases this year and disposed of cases by plea when appropriate. 
In contrast to previous practice, we have emphasized that the decision to try a case or to 
enter into a disposition must be based on the best interest of the client. Historically, sheer 
numbers of trials were rewarded, which sometimes resulted in the clients being treated as a 
means to an end for the attorney. We encouraged the use of good judgment as well as trial 
ability. 

We promoted several excellent trial attorneys and attracted and hired a number of felony 
attorneys already well respected in the legal community. We were fortunate to recruit long- 
time San Joaquin County Deputy Public Defender Michael Fox to the Vertical Defense of 
Indigents grant position dedicated to the defense of individuals in "career criminal" and "three 
strikes" prosecutions. We are also pleased that Deputy Public Defender Michael Burt continues 
to bring a national spotlight to our office through his pioneering motion work challenging 
admissibility of forensic evidence such as DNA, gunshot residue and fingerprints, in not only his 
own cases, but those of his colleagues in the felony unit as well. Mr. Burt and hAr. Fox were 
featured speakers at the annual statewide Death Penalty Defense seminar. 



8- 



The Misdemeanor Unit 

A misdemeanor is an offense carrying a maximum sentence of one year or less in the county 
jail, including, for example, prostitution, driving under the influence, and vandalism. 

The misdemeanor unit of the Public Defender's Office is supervised by veteran trial attorney 
Chris Gauger and consists of three attorneys assigned to the Misdemeanor Master Calendar 
Court (Department 1 9), three attorneys assigned to Domestic Violence Court (Department 1 8) 
and ten attorneys assigned to five trial courts. 

As with felonies, in this report we track two categories of adult misdemeanor cases: (1) 
unadjudicated misdemeanor cases, in which a Deputy Public Defender represents a client 
charged with the commission of a misdemeanor offense from arraignment, the first court 
appearance after arrest, through trial and sentencing; and (2) misdemeanor motions to revoke 
probation (MTRs), where a Deputy Public Defender represents a client previously convicted of 
a misdemeanor offense, who is now charged with violating the terms and conditions of their 
probation by suffering a new arrest or failing to comply with reporting, counseling or other 
requirements of probation. Unlike felony MTRs which are often filed independently of new 
charges, misdemeanor MTRs are nearly always filed concurrently with new charges, and thus 
require little additional preparation by the trial attorney. 

During FY 2001/02, our attorneys handled 1 8,924 adult misdemeanor cases, a 6% decrease 
from the 20,169 cases in FY 2000/01, continuing a decline from a peak of 22,512 in FY 
1 997/98. Of these 1 8,924 misdemeanors, 1 7,268, or 91 %, were new misdemeanor cases, 
and the balance, 1,656, or 9% were misdemeanor MTRs. 

Despite the reduction in new misdemeanor cases handled, and an increase in the number of 
attorneys assigned to the unit (from 15 to 16 during FY 2001/02), the unit was greatly 
impacted by the implementation in January 2002 of a misdemeanor master calendar court, 
which required staffing of seven misdemeanor courts, rather than five. Misdemeanor cases are 
now assigned to trial courts from Department 22, the felony master calendar court, and they 
may be sent to any one of thirty courtrooms at the Hall of Justice and Civic Center courthouses 
for trial 

Unadjudicated Misdemeanors: Figure 5 shows the number of unadjudicated misdemeanor 
cases our attorneys handled annually since FY 1 976/77. There was a significant increase in the 
number of unadjudicated misdemeanor cases during FYs 1 980/81 and 1 981/82. Since then, 
the number of unadjudicated misdemeanor cases has remained essentially the same, with a 
decline of 17.4% since FY1 997/98. 



-9 



Figure 5: Unadjudicated Misdemeanors, FYs 1976-2002 
(Source: CMS Report #5029) 



24000 




A <o x /^ j& a °t <&r -^ <#> <£T ot>S° o^r o?r a^ gsr gsP ^r qN^ ^ <#r ^ ^ ^ jr <&? <&? ^ ^ 

& & & $ & s # $> $> $> $> $> $> N # & $> & & & N <£> N <£> N # # # # j§> j§> 



Misdemeanor MTRs: Fisure 6 shows the number of misdemeanor probation violation cases 
(MTRs) our attorneys handled annually since FY 1 976/77. The number of misdemeanor MTRs 
was relatively stable from 1 976 to 1 988, when a dramatic increase began, peaking at 221 3 in 
FY 1 991/92. The number of misdemeanor MTRs has declined 25% since then. 



3000 
2750 - 
2500 
2250 
2000 



Figure 6: Misdemeanor MTRs, FYs 1976-2002 
(Source: CMS Report #5029) 




^ ,CuV V Q> 



0& .„& .A 



& .<£> 



c&> oSb A 



k ^ N c£ ^ N # N c§> $r$> $> N # $> ^ $> ,$> N # N # ^ N # N # ^ N <£> ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 



r» ,.;> ,-0 Q \ iC r> 



10 



Misdemeanor Caseloads: As with felony caseloads, misdemeanor cases are not being 
disposed of as quickly as they are being filed. With misdemeanor cases being continued 
while new cases enter the system, the court's dockets, and thus our misdemeanor attorneys' 
caseloads continue to grow. Figure 7 shows comparative numbers of arraignments and 
dispositions in Public Defender misdemeanor cases from 1987 through 2002. During FY 
2001/02, 1 0.9% fewer misdemeanor cases were disposed of than were filed - adding 935 
pending cases to our attorneys' caseload. 



Figure 7: Public Defender Misdemeanors - New Cases and Dispositions - 1987-2002 
(source: CMS Reports #5040 and 5042) 



12000 



3000 



2000 



1000 




■Arraignments 
■Dispositions 



oS> o9> c&> o N 

•\\ % 9^ Q? <# 

3> c$P r$? cSP eS> 



oP d$ oS> 

cC? J> J* 



j* 3 



cfr 



<F <T 



The year in review: The biggest challenge for the Misdemeanor Unit has been the Superior 
Court's structure change — the first major change in twenty years — in the manner in which 
misdemeanors are distributed among the courts. In January 2001, a master calendar court 
was created in Department 1 9 to handle all misdemeanor arraignments. In the past, there 
were five courtrooms in which misdemeanor cases were distributed for all appearances from 
arraignment through trial. Now all misdemeanor cases (except for domestic violence cases) 
are arraigned in Department 1 9. This required our office to transfer three of our misdemeanor 
trial attorneys out of the trial rotation and into Department to handle the unified arraignment 
calendar of up to 200 clients a day. This change brought with it a number of unintended 
impacts. 



11 



First, arraignment court is chaotic, crowded, and slow. In the past, an individual accused of a 
misdemeanor would appear in one of five misdemeanor courts and typically would be 
arraigned within an hour. In the master calendar court, the accused person might wait from 
8.00 a.m. until early afternoon for an appearance that generally lasts less than one minute. 

In addition, the new system has resulted in attorneys being ordered present in many courts at 
the same time. For any attorney, let alone a new attorney, this is a challenge. It also can 
sometimes create the false impression that attorneys are unavailable, angering judges and 
frustrating clients. 

Another challenge for the misdemeanor unit has been the domestic violence court, 
Department 1 8. San Francisco is one of many cities across the country that has adopted a 
"zero-tolerance" policy with accusations of domestic violence. As a result, the number of 
people arrested for, and charged with, domestic violence offenses has increased dramatically, 
as the merits of domestic violence accusations are determined in the courtroom rather than by 
the police officer at the scene. 

Those accused of domestic violence offenses have bail set in amounts much higher than in the 
past. Unable to post bail, many of them are pleading guilty to crimes they may not have 
committed simply to get out of jail. Nevertheless, our attorneys have zealously represented 
those who are willing to fight unwarranted accusations and have achieved quite favorable 
results. 

This office has maintained a policy of vertical representation of clients - one attorney from 
arraignment to disposition - for two decades. Despite the difficulties presented by the 
misdemeanor master calendar system, clients continue to be represented by one attorney 
from start to finish. Moreover, the misdemeanor attorneys tried more cases to verdict per 
capita than at any time over the last three years - the number of trials remained stable while the 
number of trial attorneys in the unit declined 1 5% because of the staffing of Department 1 9. 



The Investigations Unit 

The investigations unit of the Public Defender's Office consists of fourteen investigators 
supervised by highly-regarded Chief Investigator Patrick Leary. 

The Public Defender Investigator performs investigative work in connection with criminal 
complaints and offenses under the jurisdiction of the Public Defenders Office. The essential 
functions include: conducting investigations of a wide variety of criminal cases to provide 
support for legal defense in felony and misdemeanor charges; interviewing witnesses, victims, 
law enforcement personnel, representatives of agencies and other particulars to gather 
statements and information on events surrounding cases; serving subpoenas, testifying in court 
and maintaining records of investigative activities; and extensive use of computers. 



12 



Durins FY 2001/02, there were 1,551 investigation requests submitted to the investigations 
unit, down from 1,870 in FY 200/01 and 1,863 in FY 1999-00. 



The Research Unit 

We expanded the Research Unit during FY 2001/02 to include an additional attorney, allowing 
for an improvement in the quantity and quality of written work provided to the trial attorneys. 
The Research Unit continues to adopt an interactive, professional, and aggressive style 
encouraging attorneys to press all legal issues that protect our client's rights. In addition to 
handling a mountain of typical issues and motions, our research attorneys and staff have also 
written motions and writs challenging the imposition of onerous bail conditions and 
addressing continuing procedural problems in handling cases within mandated statutory time 
periods. Our research attorneys also provided input to the state Attorney General's office on 
numerous occasions when novel questions of law or changes in legislation were being 
considered. 

Our trial attorneys owe a special debt of gratitude to Chris Gauger, who supervised the 
research unit, reviewing, editing, and personally drafting much of the work of that unit, in 
addition to supervising our misdemeanor attorneys and overseeing our training programs. 



Alternatives to Incarceration 

The Office of the Public Defender is proud to participate in a number of programs that 
emphasize rehabilitation rather than punishment of offenders whose criminal activity is 
associated with addiction and substance abuse. 

Drug Court: The Office has been an active participant in the creation and administration of 
Drug Court, in which offenders with substance abuse problems can participate in intensive 
rehabilitation and treatment programs, enabling them to beat their addiction and break the 
cycle of drugs, crime and jail. Deputy Public Defender Armando Miranda is a bilingual attorney 
whose full-time assignment is Drug Court. He has earned well-deserved kudos for his diligence 
from his clients, colleagues, supervisors, the court, prosecutors and treatment providers alike. 

In FY 2001/02, Armando represented 625 individuals in Drug Court, up 108% from FY 
2000/01, and up 130% from FY 1999/00. During the past year, 123 clients completed 
treatment, "graduated" from Drug Court, and had their cases dismissed. During FY 2001/02, 
the number of individuals wanting to participate in Drug Court was greater than the treatment 
program capacity, and Drug Court was closed to new admissions for some time. We 
anticipate that the number of Drug Court clients will remain stable until more treatment capacity 
is made available. We continue to encourage expanded funding for such treatment programs 
as they have been shown to be much more effective at reducing recidivism, and thus more 
cost-effective, than incarceration. 

-13- 



Mentor Court: As with Drug Court, the Office has been an active participant in the creation 
and administration of Mentor Court. Mentor Court targets 1 8 to 25 year-old San Franciscans 
charged with selling drugs or possession of drugs for the purpose of sale, who do not 
presently have a substance abuse problem, but would benefit from educational, vocational or 
other skill training programs which will enable them to become lawfully self-supporting. The 
Public Defender's Mentor Court attorney works collaboratively with Pretrial Diversion Services 
to develop a unique Mentor Court Participation Plan for the offender, which includes, in 
addition to the educational and vocational classes, at least 2 court appearances per month, 
attendance at weekly Pretrial Diversion Services classes, and counseling and/or testing as 
directed. At the conclusion of 1 2 to 1 8 months of successful participation in the program, 
and after completion of the pre-determined Program Plans, the client's case is dismissed. 

In FY 2001/02, we represented 1 54 clients in Mentor Court, up 1 7% from FY 2000/01, and up 
1 1 4% from FY 1 999/00. The number of clients would have been much greater, but Mentor 
Court was closed to new admittees, and will be eliminated entirely when present participants 
complete their programs. It is our hope that a new alternative educational and vocational 
training program be created to address the needs of our unskilled young offenders. 

Targeted Substance Abuse Treatment Services: As part of an integrated San Francisco 
Anti-Drug Abuse program funded through the state Office of Criminal Justice Planning, our 
office has on staff a Substance Abuse Treatment Specialist, Shannon Bennett, who assists our 
attorneys in identifying which of our clients are most appropriate for Drug Court or would 
benefit from drug treatment as part of a negotiated probationary sentence. The Treatment 
Specialist responds to assessment requests by attorneys and also notifies attorneys of clients 
arrested in targeted "buy-bust" operations. Upon direction of the attorneys, she determines, 
by interviews and the use of professional assessment tools, whether the client has a substance 
abuse problem, educates the clients regarding the benefits of drug treatment placement, 
refers the clients to appropriate treatment programs, facilitates program placements, 
communicates with the courts and treatment providers the client's treatment needs and 
progress, and tracks placement information and outcomes. 

In FY 2001/02, our Treatment Specialist assessed 41 8 clients, 256 of whom were referred to 
treatment programs. 



Clean Slate Program 

The Public Defender's office has dedicated an attorney and clerk to assisting individuals in 
clearing their criminal records. For many years, the Office has been providing these statutorily- 
mandated services, recently dubbed the "Clean Slate Program." The Clean Slate program 
attorney provides services by appointment and via "drop-in" hours every Tuesday morning. 
The attorney consults with individuals, reviews their criminal records, and where appropriate 
files motions in court on behalf of those seeking to have their convictions reduced from felony 
to misdemeanor, to set aside their convictions and obtain dismissals, to seal records and to 
obtain certificates of rehabilitation and restoration of rights. 

-14- 



The Clean Slate attorney also performs community outreach to orsanizations whose 
membership misht benefit from these services. 

In FY 2001/02 the Clean Slate prosram assisted 1,296 individuals, up 105% from FY 2000/01 
and up 764% from FY 1 999/00. We served 761 "drop-in" clients and filed 343 legal motions 
for various types of relief in FY 2001/02. 



The Mental Health Unit 

Our mental health unit consists of two excellent attorneys, Robert Bunker and Kara Chien, and 
two fine investigators, Dee Warren and Karen Massi. We represent clients with mental health 
disabilities in both civil and criminal proceedings, such as conservatorships, involuntary 
confinements, transitions from the criminal justice system into the mental health system, and 
litigation following not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity judgments. 

Mental Health Civil Proceedings: The mental health unit attorneys, assisted by the 
investigators, represent clients at all stages of the civil commitment process. In most cases, that 
process begins with a three-day hold for psychiatric evaluation, followed by a fourteen-day 
hold for intensive treatment. Those holds are based on a determination by a peace officer or 
clinician that a person is, as a result of a mental disorder, a danger to others, a danger to self, 
or gravely disabled, that is, unable to provide for his or her basic personal needs for food, 
clothing, or shelter. 

A person certified for fourteen days of intensive treatment is automatically scheduled for a 
certification review hearing to be held within four days of the certification. The attorneys 
represent approximately two hundred clients per month in such hearings. Persons held for 
fourteen days additionally may seek their release through judicial review by writ of habeas 
corpus. The attorneys routinely prepare petitions for writs of habeas corpus on request from 
persons detained in any of the seven inpatient psychiatric facilities located in San Francisco. 

The attorneys also represent clients on both three and fourteen day holds in hearings held to 
determine whether they have the capacity to refuse treatment with antipsychotic medication. 
The right to refuse antipsychotic medication, absent a judicial determination of incompetence 
to do so, was established by an appellate court decision in Riese v. St. Mary's Hospital and 
Medical Center. 

After the expiration of the fourteen-day hold, persons may be subject to additional involuntary 
confinement, as well as other legal disabilities, under the conservatorship provisions of the 
Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act. LPS conservatorship is based on a clinical determination that a 
person is gravely disabled as a result of mental disorder or impairment by chronic alcoholism 
and unwilling to accept, or incapable of accepting, treatment voluntarily. 

The attorneys provide ongoing representation for more than 500 LPS conservatees, from the 
establishment phase through postestablishment proceedings involving objections to the 

-15- 



conservatorship itself, to placement decisions made by the conservator, or to specific 
proposed medical and psychiatric interventions includes psychiatric mediation, 
electroconvulsive therapy, and medical procedures of varying severity, raising issues of 
necessity and informed consent. 

Most LPS conservatees are initially confined in locked facilities located throughout the state and 
subsequently transitioned to less restrictive placements or to independent living. Our attorneys 
are vigilant in using legal mechanisms to enforce the statutory and constitutional rights of LPS 
conservatees to treatment services which promote the potential of the person to function 
independently, and to treatment which is provided in ways that are least restrictive of the 
personal liberty of the individual. 

Mental Health Criminal Proceedings: The mental health unit attorneys represent persons 
who have been found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI) on writs and in proceedings for 
conditional release (outpatient parole), revocation of outpatient status, restoration of sanity, 
and extension of commitment of inpatient or outpatient status. 

Most clients found NGI dre initially committed to a state hospital. After 1 80 days, an NGI client 
may file a writ of habeas corpus seeking release from the state hospital into outpatient parole 
(conditional release). The client has the burden of proving that he or she would not be a 
danger to the health and safety of self or others, while under supervision and treatment in the 
community. 

Conditional release may also be achieved on a recommendation by the state hospital. On 
such a recommendation, the conditional release program (CONREP) submits a plan for 
outpatient treatment that is presented at a hearing for court approval. If the court approves the 
plan, after considering the circumstances and nature of the criminal offense leading to the 
commitment and prior criminal history, the client will be placed on outpatient status for a 
renewable period of one year. 

After completing one year on conditional release, the NGI client is entitled to file a petition for 
restoration of sanity. The client bears the burden of proving, at trial, that he or she would no 
longer be a danger to the health and safety of self or others and would continue to take 
antipsychotic medication in an unsupervised setting. 

A client found NGI on felony charges may have his or her maximum term of commitment 
extended for renewable periods of two years each, and thus he or she may be confined in 
the hospital for a longer period of time than could have been imposed had the client been 
convicted and sentenced to the maximum sentence in prison. The use of such extensions 
belies the popular belief that NGI clients are "beating the system" and explains why, at the time 
of the initial NGI plea, the client must be admonished that the entry of such a plea could result 
in a lifetime commitment to a state mental hospital. On petitions for extension, the 
prosecution bears the burden of proving that the client, as a result of mental disorder, 
represents a substantial danger of physical harm to others. 



-16 



Approximately 60 NGI clients are represented currently by the mental health unit. In addition 
to court appearances on the various NGI legal proceedings, the attorneys maintain regular 
contact with the clients and their social workers, caseworkers, psychiatrists and therapists to 
monitor treatment, assess suitability for less restrictive treatment, and to address special 
requests. 

Apart from their NGI caseloads, the mental health unit attorneys regularly consult with felony 
and misdemeanor unit attorneys regarding clients who have been found incompetent to stand 
trial and clients subject to concurrent criminal and civil proceedings. 

Developments and Trends: The civil caseload of the mental health unit is impacted by 
developments in case law, legislation, and the manner in which mental health services are 
delivered to our clients. In response to court rulings, the attorneys have been active in 
asserting patient's rights such as the right to refuse antipsychotic medication and the right to an 
automatic certification review hearing on a fourteen-day hold. These decisions have 
substantially augmented our legal responsibilities. A recent state appellate court decision 
involving notice and the opportunity to be heard prior to the establishment of a temporary LPS 
conservatorship may do the same. 

Contrary to these developments in case law, the recent trend in state legislation has been 
toward curtailing, rather than expanding, patients' rights. This year, for example, legislation was 
enacted to require mandatory outpatient treatment for persons meeting certain legal criteria. If 
adopted and implemented in San Francisco County, this legislation will engender a new and 
complex layer of legal proceedings necessitating additional legal representation by the mental 
health unit. 

The civil caseload of the mental health unit has markedly increased in recent years, particularly 
the number of probable cause hearings, which increased 54%, from 1,435 in FY 1992/93 to 
2,216 in FY 2001/02. This increase can be explained in part by the widespread practice, 
dictated by state and federal budgetary policies, of shortening the reimbursable length of stay 
in acute inpatient facilities, leading to increased rates of recidivism. Consequently, the mental 
health unit will be challenged to advocate for appropriate placements so that such "churning" 
of clients does not take place. 

On the criminal side, the state hospitals and CONREP have become increasingly reluctant to 
recommend conditional release to outpatient treatment for NGI clients. Consequently, the 
attorneys will need to closely monitor the progress of these clients and, in a greater number of 
cases, proceedings for conditional release will need to be initiated by the attorneys rather than 
by the treatment providers. 



17 



Dunns FY 2001/02, we represented 3,137 mental health clients, a 5% increase over the FY 
2000/01 fisure of 2,989. Figure 8 shows the number of Mental Health cases for FYs 1 992- 
2002. 



Figure 8: Mental Health Cases, FYs 1992-2002 
(Source: Department records) 



3500 

3250 

3000 

2750 

2500 

2250 

2000 

1750 

1500 

1250 

1000 

750 

500 

250 






1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 



The Juvenile Division 

The attorneys in our Juvenile Division represent youths charged with delinquency offenses - 
conduct that would constitute crimes if committed by adults. Our representation can begin 
as early as a citation hearing prior to the filing of a juvenile petition, through arraignment, trial, 
disposition, and throughout the period of wardship probation. Some of our juvenile clients 
are charged with serious offenses that may subject them to "fitness proceedings" to determine 
whether the youth is fit to be tried in Juvenile Court. If the court finds the youth unfit, the 
youth is transferred to the more punitive adult criminal justice system. 

The Juvenile Division of the Public Defender's Office is supervised by long-time juvenile justice 
advocate Patricia Lee, and consists of six attorneys, a social worker and support staff. 

With the passage in March 2000 of Proposition 21, prosecutors throughout the state have had 
the power to file serious felony charges against juveniles directly in adult court, precluding 
judicial determinations of the youths' fitness. Fortunately, the San Francisco District Attorney 
has a policy not to proceed by direct filing and to allow the court to exercise its discretion to 
determine fitness in such cases. 



18 



We also represent youth charged with violations of probation such as truancy, failing to attend 
school or counseling, and general non-compliance with probation conditions. Additionally, 
we represent minors charged in Welfare & Institutions Code section 601 petitions, in which 
youths are deemed "beyond parental control" and face commitments to group home or 
foster home placements. 

The role of the juvenile defense attorney is enormous. In addition to all of the responsibilities 
involved in defending the criminal case, our office must also gather information regarding 
clients' individual histories, families, schooling and community ties, in order to assist courts in 
resolving cases outside of the formal "system" when appropriate, preventing unnecessary pre- 
trial detention of minors, avoiding unnecessary transfers to adult court, and ordering 
individualized dispositions. 

Our caseload of juvenile clients remained essentially unchanged from last fiscal year. We 
represented 1,392 youths in FY 2001/02 compared with 1,382 in FY 2000/01 and 1,327 in FY 
1999/00. In addition, in FY 2001/02 we represented 579 youths in court appearances 
regarding their progress or lack of progress on probation - a significant workload that 
previously went unreported. 

During FY 2001/02 we made significant improvements in the delivery of services to our young 
clients and their families. We maintained increased attorney staffing at the juvenile division and 
ensured that they were experienced felony attorneys. In addition, we are proud to have 
continued and established new collaborations with other agencies to help our young clients. 

Juvenile Justice Collaborations: To effectively implement our mission, it is vital that we work 
collaboratively with other agencies. Some of those new partnerships are highlighted below. 

Education Advocacy Panel: In order to address the long unmet educational needs of our 
young clients, the Office of the Public Defender has collaborated with the Pacific Juvenile 
Defender Center, the Bar Association of San Francisco, Legal Services for Children and 
countless dedicated legal volunteers. We are developing a panel of legal volunteers who will 
be trained to partner with the lawyers in our juvenile division to provide enhanced educational 
advocacy for our young clients to ensure that their special needs identified and met. Because 
the attorneys in our office typically have little training in the educational arena, we found this to 
be an excellent opportunity to involve volunteer attorneys from the private bar in the 
representation of our clients. 

We are grateful to have Molly Dunn, the recipient of a fellowship from the prestigious Equal 
Justice Works, continue to serve as our Education Advocate. She provides special education, 
suspension and expulsion advocacy on behalf of our clients, and seeks rehabilitative 
alternatives for children facing increasingly harsh penalties of school disciplinary and 
delinquency proceedings. 



-19- 



Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice Detention Diversion Advocacy Program (CJCJ-DDAP).- 
We continue to work collaboratively with GCJ - DDAP in an effort to identify youths subjected 
to continued detention after an arrest and prior to their first court appearance in order to 
more effectively secure their release. We have developed a streamlined process to assist 
youth who do not require locked detention durins the pendency of their juvenile delinquency 
proceedings. Our collaboration allows for the quick identification of wraparound services for 
our young clients in order to reduce the need for their continued incarceration and to assist 
them in the long term in becoming successful, law-abiding members of the community. 



Improving On What We Do 

Many of our attorneys and staff have been working in the Office for several years and are 
recognized experts in criminal defense. We value the expertise they bring, and we look for 
opportunities to share their wisdom and experience with newer members of our team. We 
also want to ensure that our clients receive the benefit of a well-trained and qualified team, 
including our attorneys, investigators and administrative staff. 

When we instituted the first formal attorney training program in the history of this office, it 
was our goal to have well-trained attorneys who would possess the skill and knowledge 
to try any case, no matter how difficult, but also who would have the judgment to always 
act in the best interests of the clients. While we encourage zealousness and confidence, 
we have tried to ensure that our attorneys do not act out of bravado or convenience, and 
do not sacrifice the interests of the client for career building purposes. During this last year 
we made excellent strides in achieving this goal. 

Support for our attorneys: In 2001, we instituted two new programs to ensure our 
attorneys get support for their often complex and stressful work. In "caseload conferencing," 
Deputy Public Defenders meet with their supervisors each quarter to discuss their caseloads 
and determine whether, given the attorney's experience and skill level, any changes should be 
made. In "case conferencing," attorneys meet with their supervisors and peers each month to 
discuss their cases - strategies and procedures are reviewed and recommendations are made. 
Much like hospital "grand rounds," these discussions provide occasions for novice and 
experienced attorneys to seek guidance and technical assistance. These conferences provide 
opportunities for attorneys to obtain input from others whom they might not otherwise seek 
out, broadening the pool of knowledge available to them. 

Continuing education: We provide our Deputy Public Defenders numerous opportunities 
throughout the year to increase their professional expertise by offering educational seminars. 
These programs provide excellent training to our staff, and also serve as State Bar-approved 
Minimum Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) courses, which benefit our attorneys as well as 
members of the San Francisco Bar Association's Conflicts Panel. 



-20 



Given the limited number of seminars previously provided, beginning in February 2001, we 
instituted an accelerated training schedule for our staff, presenting nearly four times as many 
programs as before. During FY 2001/02, the office presented 21 MCLE-approved seminars 
and 27 other training programs to staff in the felony, misdemeanor, juvenile, and investigation 
units - an increase of 60% over FY 2000/01 and 220% over FY 1 999/00. 

Seminar topics this year included Proposition 36, Mental State Defenses, The Art of Cross- 
Examination, DNA Fundamentals, and Confessions. We were pleased to have featured such 
private bar luminaries as Liz Semel, Chris Arguedas, Doron Weinberg, Mark VanDerHout, and 
Charles Denton. 

Trial Skills Training: During FY 2001/02, our office contracted with Timothy Hallahan, adjunct 
Stanford Law School professor and former Alameda County Deputy Public Defender, who 
provides training for Public Defender offices throughout the state. By contracting with Mr. 
Hallahan, we were able to provide top-notch training, often upon short notice, at a fraction of 
the cost of a full-time staff attorney. In a series of two and three-day small group training 
programs, mock cases were played out and the attorneys' performances were reviewed on 
videotape and constructively critiqued by their peers and supervisors. These sessions 
strengthen professional skills and encourage teamwork among our attorneys. We developed 
training programs for both entry-level misdemeanor attorneys and attorneys new to the felony 
unit. 

Misdemeanor Training: Handling a misdemeanor caseload is not something that should be 
learned through trial and error at the client's expense. In the past, there has been little 
organized training of the neophyte attorney. Although there is no substitute for the actual 
experience of in-court advocacy, in the past year we instituted several programs to improve 
both the knowledge and integrity of our attorneys. Soon after hiring, the attorney meets with a 
trainer and staff attorneys to get a general overview of the office, the local criminal justice 
system, the daily life of the misdemeanor attorney, and the important points of law and 
procedure that the attorney should know for competent practice. This three-day training was 
designed by the management team with the help of Tim Hallahan. 

On-going training for misdemeanor attorneys has included two rounds of all-day videotaped 
sessions. The areas of training include: cross and direct examination; opening and closing 
statements which senior staff and outside experts intensively critique. Improvement in 
technique and style were immediately noticeable. This is in addition to the monthly training on 
issues of law provided to the entire office. 

Monthly case conference meetings are held at which attorneys discuss cases with colleagues, 
getting the benefit of peer experiences with a supervisor monitoring the discussions. These 
have proved effective at continuing education and development. Professionalism and ethics 
are also reviewed as new attorneys often find themselves in ethically ambiguous situations. 



21 



Finances 

The annual bucket for the Office of the Public Defender for FY 2001/02 was $1 4.1 million, 
includins resources from the City, state and federal sovemment and private foundations 
(see Fisure 9). For the first time, our budget was overseen by a financial professional, 
Director of Finance and Planning, Jamie Austin. We transitioned to fully-automated billing, 
invoicing and grants management via FAMIS, the City's Financial Accounting Management 
Information System, enabling more timely and accurate monitoring of resources and 
expenditures, ensuring compliance with purchasing regulations and prompt payments to 
vendors. 

Although FY 2001/02 was a difficult budget year for the City generally, we were able to 
maintain our level of services through new sources of revenue and close monitoring of 
interpreter and expert witness costs. 



Figure 9: Resources by Source, FY 2001/02 
(Source: Financial Accounting Management Information System) 




Private 
1% 



General Fund 
94% 




Federal 
3% 



Figure 10: Expenditures by Type, FY 2001/02 
(Source: Financial Accounting Management Information System) 

Services of Other 
Departments 



Capital 

<1% 

Experts 
2% 

Interpreters 
<1% 




Personnel 
88% 



Law Library 

2% 



22 



APPENDIX 



Fiscal Yr 


Unadj Fel Fel MTRs Unadj Misd Misd MTRs MH-Civil MH-Crim Fel Ans Fel Dispo Misd Ans Misd Dispo 


1976/77 


2087 


28 


7710 


550 














1977/78 


2763 


85 


10106 


620 














1978/79 


2547 


76 


7640 


376 














1979/80 


2635 


80 


7353 


446 














1980/81 


2833 


79 


11391 


341 














1981/82 


2940 


299 


18603 


370 














1982/83 


2939 


483 


17707 


364 














1983/84 


2725 


524 


15631 


308 














1984/85 


3124 


553 


17290 


264 














1985/86 


3708 


766 


19386 


414 














1986/87 


4090 


885 


20248 


412 














1987/88 


4894 


929 


20383 


486 






7015 


5039 


9211 


8380 


1988/89 


5097 


1147 


19007 


1067 






6369 


5555 


8038 


7717 


1989/90 


4650 


1206 


20564 


1339 






5715 


5832 


9985 


8113 


1990/91 


4046 


1110 


19978 


1362 






5438 


6015 


9227 


11351 


1991/92 


4590 


1101 


20500 


2213 






7119 


6603 


9062 


9946 


1992/93 


4842 


1204 


19669 


2185 


2301 


77 


6747 


7810 


8677 


8529 


1993/94 


4835 


1410 


15814 


2049 


2738 


79 


6432 


7071 


5463 


6146 


1994/95 


4392 


1463 


15541 


1677 


2517 


87 


5769 


5742 


6870 


6082 


1995/96 


4522 


1356 


18484 


1399 


2652 


77 


6118 


5270 


8569 


7541 


1996/97 


4802 


1349 


20278 


1581 


2821 


80 


6686 


6262 


8909 


7959 


1997/98 


4502 


1567 


20907 


1605 


2575 


63 


5932 


5663 


9272 


9450 


1998/99 


4224 


1338 


20448 


1716 


2403 


72 


4930 


5324 


8788 


9600 


1999/00 


4535 


1401 


19079 


1958 


2570 


35 


5795 


5726 


8427 


8802 


2000/01 


4204 


1100 


18392 


1777 


2945 


44 


5415 


4957 


8118 


8475 


2001/02 


4489 


1106 


17268 


1656 


3091 


46 


5084 


4797 


8529 


7594 



Unadj Fel Unadjudicated Felony Cases 

Fel MTRs Motions to Revoke Felony Probation 

Unadj Misd Unadjudicated Misdemeanor Cases 

Misd MTRs Motions to Revoke Misdemeanor Probation 

MH-Civil Mental Health Civil Cases 

MH-Crim Mental Health Criminal Cases 

Fel Ans Felony Cases Arraigned 

Fel Dispo Felony Cases Disposed Of 

Misd Ans Misdemeanor Cases Arraigned 

Misd Dispo Misdemeanor Cases Disposed Of 



23 



How to Contact Us 



MAIN OFFICE (415)553-1671 

Internet www.sf30v.or3/pd 

Juvenile Division (415) 753-7600 

Drus Court Attorney (41 5) 553-9316 

Mentor Court Attorney (41 5) 553-9337 

Clean Slate Prosram (41 5) 553-9337 



Office Locations and Hours 

Office of the Public Defender 

555 Seventh Street 

San Francisco, CA 941 03 

8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday-Friday 



Office of the Public Defender - Juvenile Division 

375 Woodside Avenue 

San Francisco, CA 941 27 

8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday-Friday 



24 



3 

'8 



=fe •n co 
i- 1 ON ^ 



3# 



M 






s>»>" 



$M 






__■■ 

r < •" *• 
***** 

_-»0,:i.- : 



San Francisco Public Defender's Office 




•.■\~-*"i 






'«Mfiq..«:v7. 




IIICTIOC 



Annual Report • 2003 









Message from the Public Defender 



f\s Public Defender for the City and County of 
San Francisco, it Is my great honor to share with you 
the highlights of the office's achievements during 2003. 
Now In our 82nd year, the office has established itself as 
a national leader in providing the highest quality legal 
representation. In addition, we have implemented various 
support programs to help clients avoid re-entering the 
criminal and juvenile justice systems in the future. 

I'm very proud of the accomplishments of the past 
year. First and foremost, the office serves the public by 
ensuring that the sacred promise of "liberty and justice for 
all" extends to everyone, and not just to those who can 
afford to hire a private lawyer. Last year we represented 
23.000 people in misdemeanor, felony, juvenile, and 
mental health proceedings. Each case requires the caring 
and individualized attention of a well-trained, prepared 
and effective attorney who is dedicated to working on the 
client's behalf. Each case must be carefully investigated 
and researched. If the case proceeds to trial, the attorney 
must be thoroughly prepared to defend the case. 

Second, we provide our attorneys and staff with the best 
professional development and training. Through our train- 
ing programs, individual mentoring and performance 
evaluations, we ensure that our attorneys and staff 
continue to provide our clients and their families with 
the best legal representation possible. 

Third, we established a number of innovative and exciting 
programs that help clients turn their lives around. Many of 
our clients struggle daily with tremendous challenges 
such as homelessness, lack of education, unemployment, 
mental illness and drug addiction. Programs such as 
Drug Court and Educational Court provide people with 
a means to seek treatment and education in lieu of prison. 
Our Clean Slate program helps rehabilitated clients clear 
their records of criminal convictions so they can find work 
and become productive citizens. 



Fourth, we have worked with other criminal justice 
agencies to improve the criminal and juvenile justice 
system. Earlier this year, we worked with the Trial Courts, 
the District Attorney, and other criminal justice agencies 
to create the City's first consolidated Drug Court. Now, 
a single judge rules on cases that were previously spread 
between Drug Court and Educational Court, as well as 
those cases eligible for Proposition 36. We have also 
helped to establish the City's first Behavioral Health Court, 
which provides specialized services to clients suffering 
from mental illness. Along with the Mayor's Office, the 
Controller's City Projects team and the Bar Association of 
San Francisco, we have spearheaded key changes to the 
Conflicts Panel, which will bring greater accountability to 
the process of appointing attorneys for clients when the 
Public Defender cannot represent them due to conflicts 
of interest. These measures will also save the City nearly 
$1 million each year. 

Finally, we have increased public awareness of issues 
affecting criminal and juvenile justice. Through our Equal 
Justice Campaign and Speaker's Bureau, we continue 
to educate the larger Bay Area community about the 
workings of the courts and criminal and juvenile 
justice systems. 

On behalf of the Public Defender's 
Office, I give you our commitment 
that we will continue to work tire- 
lessly to help those who otherwise 
would have no hope for justice. 
Only by having a strong and vibrant 
Public Defender's office are the 
scales of justice balanced. We ask 
for your help and support in the 
years ahead. 




Thank you. 
Sincerely, 

Jeff Adachi 
Public Defender 



Fulfilling the Promise of Equal Justice 



R 



reason and reflection require us to recognize that in our 
adversary system of criminal justice, any person haled into 
court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured 
of a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him. This seems 
to us to be an obvious truth. Governments spend vast sums 
of money to establish machinery to try defendants accused 
of crime. From the very beginning, our constitutions and 
laws have laid great emphasis on safeguards designed to 
assure fair trials before impartial tribunals. This noble ideal 
cannot be realized if the poor man charged with a crime has 
to face his accusers without a lawyer to assist him. 

- Justice Hugo Black, 
Gideon vs. Wainwright 

2003 marked the 40th Anniversary of Gideon vs. 
Wainwright, the Supreme Court decision which held that 
the U.S. Constitution requires the appointment of a lawyer 
at state's expense for a person accused of a crime who 
cannot afford a lawyer. 

At the Hall of Justice, and at the Youth Guidance Center, the 
Public Defender's staff of 90 attorneys and 46 investigators, 
paralegals, social workers, and clerks have the Herculean 



task of meeting Gideon's promise of equal justice to over 
23,000 people who come to the Public Defender for legal 
representation each year. 

For much of its 82-year history, the San Francisco Public 
Defender's office has been severely understaffed, receiving 
only a small fraction of the funding made available to police 
and prosecutors. This inequity resulted in overwhelming 
caseloads that often prevented deputy public defenders 
from doing their best work. 

In January 2003, at the request of the Public Defender, the 
Controller conducted a four-month study of the office and 
issued a series of recommendations to increase staffing and 
improve its operations. These benchmarks for justice' 1 now 
form the foundation of the Public Defender's three-year 
strategic plan. In July 2003, in response to the Controller's 
report, the Mayor's Office and the Board of Supervisors 
agreed to provide additional staff and resources to the 
Public Defender's office. 




Deputy Public Defender Will Maas meets with a client 
at the San Francisco County Jail. 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
AUG 2 1 2006 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Benchmarks for Justice 




Deputy Public Defender Phoenix Streets 
argues a case before a jury. 



3ertlng Caseload Standards and Reducing 
Attorney Caseload: 

In 2001 and 2002, 

staff shortages brought 

attorneys' caseloads 

to overwhelming and 

unmanageable numbers. 

Felony, misdemeanor 

and juvenile attorneys 

were handling three 

times as many cases 

as their counterparts in 

comparable public defend 

er offices. These caseloads far exceeded the workload 

standards set forth by the American Bar Association. 

In 2003, the office established maximum annual 

caseload standards: 

Felony attorneys - 1 50 cases 
Juvenile attorneys - 200 cases 
Misdemeanor attorneys - 250 cases 
Mental Health attorneys - 250 cases 

Implementation of Caseweighting Standards: 

The Public Defender has adopted a case-weighting system 
where cases are assigned and distributed based on the 
seriousness of the charges, complexity of the case, and 
experience level of the attorney. Managers use the 
case-weighting system to control the attorneys' workloads 
and ensure that all cases receive the time and attention 
they need. 

Increase Attorney Support Staff: 

The Controller's 2003 study found that the office did not 
have sufficient investigative, paralegal, and support staff 
to assist the attorneys. This resulted in attorneys not 
having sufficient time to work on their cases. In October 
2003. additional paralegals and investigators were added 
to the staff. 



Compliance with the Manual of Policy 

and Procedures: 

The Public Defender has developed a comprehensive 
Manual of Policy and Procedures which sets forth the 
standard of representation that is expected and required 
of all staff. 

Develop, Design and Launch a New Information- 
Technology System: 

In 2003, the Public Defender's office worked with the 
Department of Telecommunications and Information 
Services to design and develop a new state-of-the-art 
information-technology system to track court information 
and automate office work. The new system will also allow 
the staff to access case statistics and produce regular 
reports on individual attorney workload, overall office 
workload, and fluctuations in the type of cases assigned 
to each attorney. 

Reduce the Costs of Appointing Private Counsel 
by Limiting Cases Referred to Outside Counsel: 

Sometimes, for a variety of reasons, the Public Defender 

must declare a conflict of interest and cannot represent a 

person. In such a situation, the case is assigned to a private 

lawyer appointed from a 

panel administered by 

the San Francisco Bar df§ t : ~ 

Association. In 2003, the 

Public Defender's office 

enacted new reporting 

mechanisms to better 

regulate this process, 

resulting in substantial 

savings to the City. Deputy Public Defender Danielle Harris in court. 




Fighting for Justice 



lighting for justice is a daily reality at the Hall of Justice. 
Unlike the TV version of justice in which lawyers and judges 
focus on one case at a time, more than one thousand cases 
are heard each week in the San Francisco courts. Deputy 
Public Defenders must ensure that each client's case 
receives the care and attention it deserves. 

A Deputy Public 
Defender's typical day 
starts out in the holding 
cell, interviewing dozens 
of persons who have 
recently been arrested. 
Whether the crime 
charged is driving under 
the influence, battery 
or homicide, each 
individual must be 
thoroughly interviewed so that their release status can be 
argued before the judge and a plea entered. Each case must 
be meticulously reviewed and investigated by the attorney, 
and legal motions must be researched, written and filed. 
Any constitutional issues must be presented in court and 
thoroughly litigated. 

The attorney must work to resolve each case for a result 
that is just. Even if the case is eventually dismissed or 
negotiated with a guilty 
plea, the defender must 
still conduct a full investi- 
gation of the facts. 




Deputy Public Defender Phong Wang discusses 
a case with Prosecutor Sharon Reardon. 




Deputy Public Defenders Kathy Asada 
and Aleem Raja prepare for court. 



If the case proceeds to 
a jury trial, the defender 
must interview and 
subpoena witnesses, 
prepare for jury 
selection, evidentiary 
hearings, opening 

statements, direct and cross-examination and final argu- 
ment. Trying a case is a tremendous challenge requiring 
the attorney to combine all of his or her legal education, 
experience, wit, skill and common sense to meet the 
formidable resources of the state. 

The office's felony unit handled 10,363 cases in 2003 and 
tried a total of 48 jury trials. The felony probation violation 
unit handled 247 of the 1,747 probation violations assigned 
to the office. The office's misdemeanor unit, comprised of 
16 lawyers, handled a total of 12,822 cases in 2003, and 
tried a total of 86 jury trials. 




Deputy Public Defender Stephen Rosen in court. 



"The right to be free of illegal search and seizures 
Fourth Amendment 

Deshawn was arrested for 

trespassing, searched by 

a police officer and 

charged with possession 

of narcotics. The officer 

testified that there were 

posted signs throughout 

the area that said, "no 

trespassing." After the 

public defender 

investigator showed the judge photographs disproving the 

officer's testimony, the judge ruled that the police officer's 

search of Deshawn was illegal. 

"The right to testify on my own behalf ...." 
Fifth Amendment 

Peter had one strike against him. Already on probation, 
Peter was again charged with assault. Peter claimed he 
was innocent, but told his defender that he was afraid no 
one would believe him. The defender investigated Peter's 
case, and found he was telling the truth. Peter turned down 
a plea bargain, and testified at trial. Withstanding two days 
of rigorous cross-examination by the prosecutor, Peter 
was acquitted. 

"The right to a jury trial ... " Sixth Amendment 

Enrique was charged with first degree murder. During an 
argument, Enrique had allegedly struck a man. The man fell 
to the ground and died of a head injury. Enrique's defender 
and investigator tracked down dozens of witnesses and 
presented extensive forensic evidence at trial which proved 
that the cause of death was consistent with an accident, 
not an intentional killing. Enrique's case was reduced to a 

voluntary manslaughter 
at the preliminary 
hearing, and at trial, 
Enrique was found not 
guilty of manslaughter. 




Deputy Public Defender Artricia Moore 
presents her case to the judge. 



Treating, Not Punishing, Mental Illness 



R 



epresentlng the Mentally III 



The Mental Health unit consists of two attorneys and 
two investigators. In 2003, they represented some 3,500 
clients with mental health disabilities in both civil and 
criminal proceedings. 

The role of the mental health attorney is to give voice to 
the client, to preserve the client's choice of treatment, and 
to give recourse to rights provided by law. Typically, the 
goal in such cases Is to decriminalize mentally ill clients 
and successfully transition them from jail to a mental health 
treatment program. The unit also represents clients who 
have been found "not guilty by reason of insanity" in 
post-trial proceedings. 

Behavioral Health Court 

In January 2003, the San Francisco Superior Court, in 
collaboration with the Public Defender, District Attorney 
and Department of Public Health, instituted the Behavioral 
Health Court. The Behavioral Health Court increases 



effective cooperation between the mental health treatment 
system and the criminal justice system. Participants meet 
with caseworkers, social workers or psychologists, and 
voluntarily agree to a treatment plan which may include 
residential treatment, housing and medication. Upon 
successful completion, their sentences may be reduced, 
or their cases dismissed. The Court results in improved 
access to public mental health treatment services and 
reduced recidivism. 

Anna, a 63-year old woman who suffers from schizophrenia, 
was arrested for violating a stay away order from her 
family home. While in custody, Anna was referred to the 
Behavioral Health Court. She was placed in a program 
specializing in residential mental health treatment for 
senior citizens and successfully completed her treatment 
plan, which included counseling and case management. 
Several months later, she was reunited with her family 
and returned home. Anna 's felony charges were reduced 
to misdemeanors. 




Deputy Public Defender Jennifer Johnson in Behavioral Health Court. 



Leading Juvenile Justice 



1 he juvenile justice system seeks to rehabilitate youthful 
offenders and prevent their return to jail. To this end, 
the Public Defender's juvenile office has adopted a 
holistic approach, which includes social work, educational 
advocacy, mental health and placement services for youth 
who have to be removed from their homes. The Public 
Defender's office also collaborates with community agencies 
that serve the City's youth. In 2003, the Public Defender 
successfully represented 1 ,483 young people who were 
charged in delinquency proceedings. 



Born and raised in a public 
housing project, Jason grew 
up in a neighborhood 
where drive-by shootings, 
drug sales and turf wars 
were a common occur- 
rence. At 17, Jason found 
himself facing a life 
sentence for attempted 
murder. Jason's deputy 
public defender led a team 
comprised of the public 
defender social worker, 
investigator, a foiensic 
psychologist and California 
Youth Authority expert. 
Together, they determined 
that Jason suffered from 
post-traumatic stress 

disorder when he was a victim of a random shooting two 
years earlier. After a complete assessment, coupled with 
community support, the District Attorney agreed not to 
charge Jason as an adult, and allowed Jason to seek the 
rehabilitation services of the juvenile justice system. 

Helping Exploited Girls and 

Victims of Sexual Abuse/Assault 

In 2003, the Public Defender received grants from the San 
Francisco Foundation and the VanLobenSels-RembeRock 
Foundation to fund a position for a social worker to work 
with young girls who are victims of physical, sexual, 
emotional or psychological abuse. The social worker will 
develop treatment plans that provide wrap-around services 
that encompass the girl's familial, educational, social, and 
economic needs, and also will provide counseling in areas 
such as teen pregnancy and AIDS. The social worker will 
manage and monitor the treatment plans, and provide 
follow-up reports to the court. 




Chief Attorney Teresa Caffese discusses a case in court with her client. 



Providing Educational Opportunities for Youth 

Learning disabilities and unmet educational needs often 
contribute to a youth's entry into the juvenile justice 
system. The Public Defender's Placement &. Education unit 
was created to address these needs by working with the 
School District to develop an education plan which includes 
counseling, tutoring, or job-training. The unit also investi- 
gates and monitors the treatment of clients in out-of-home 
placements, and reduces the time youth spend in detention. 

Kyle, a 15-year old boy, 
was born in prison. Because 
his mother was addicted 
to drugs, Kyle was raised 
by his aunt and uncle. Kyle 
was placed on juvenile 
probation and was charged 
with violating his probation 
for fighting in school. 
Kyle 's deputy public 
defender determined that 
Kyle was suffering from a 
serious learning disability, 
and needed one-on-one 
attention and a visual 
learning plan. The judge 
agreed not to violate Kyle's 
probation. Kyle is now 
succeeding in school. 



The SQUIRES Program 



The Public Defender's office participates in the SQUIRES 
(San Quentin Utilization of Inmate Resources, Experience 
and Studies) program, which allows at-risk youth to 
experience the reality of crime and punishment as juveniles 
meet one-on-one with prisoners at San Quentin prison. 

From time to time I receive letters from kids telling me how 
the SQUIRES program has affected their thinking about life. 
I feel a sense of accomplishment when I know something 
that I've shared in the workshops has made a difference 
in the kids' lives. Being incarcerated at a young age, and 
working with troubled youth made me realize how much 
we need to help each other in our society. The youth 
especially need our help, because they are our future. 



- SQUIRES Member 



Attacking Addiction 



LJrug Court, Proposition 36 and 
Substance Abuse Treatment 



Many people find themselves involved in the criminal 
|ustlce system because they are addicted to drugs or 
alcohol. In 2003, almost 1,000 persons participated in Drug 
Court, a program established in 1995 that assists alcohol 
and drug dependent persons in addressing their addiction 
through court monitored treatment. Utilizing a team 
approach involving legal, substance abuse and health care 
professionals. Drug Court offers residential treatment, day 
treatment or outpatient treatment, meetings with drug 
counselors, group counseling, acupuncture, urine testing, 
and regular trips to court so the judge can monitor their 
progress. Clients who successfully complete this rigorous 
program have their criminal charges dismissed. 



Another alternative is the voter-mandated Proposition 36, 
which allows persons convicted of drug possession charges 
to enter a treatment program instead of a jail or prison. 
In 2003, the office represented 326 clients in these 
proceedings. This program is funded from a state grant 
administered by the Department of Public Health. 

The Public Defender also is assisted by a Substance Abuse 
Treatment specialist, who acts as a liaison between the 
Public Defender, community treatment agencies, and the 
courts, and helps locate residential treatment programs 
for clients. 

"Freedom comes with a price. I remember 18 months ago 
when I was sitting in jail with so much despair, thinking 
one day I could have a life again. There's no words that 
can express the level of gratitude I feel towards Drug Court, 
from rescuing me from the bondage of addiction." 

- Ms. G. , 2003 Drug Court Graduate 




"When I entered this 
program 15 months ago, 
for once in my life I 
wanted to do something 
for myself. I was sick and 
tired of being stuck on the 
street with no place to go, 
with no hope. Drug Court 
gave me the strength, the 
support and the prayers 
to find that hope, that 
willingness to continue 
my life. " 

-Mr. H., 2003 
Drug Court Graduate 



Deputy Public Defender Craig Peters consults with his client. 



Building A World Class Defender's Office 




Deputy Public Defender Rebecca Young 
leads a training session. 



1 ublic Defender Training Programs 

The Public Defender's 
office has established a 
training program to 
ensure that its lawyers 
and staff receive ongoing 
training and are constant- 
ly able to improve their 
skills. In the past year, 
the Training Director 
organized eight orienta- 
tion programs for newly 

hired lawyers, monthly seminars on evidence, case 
conferences, and mock jury selection. The office has also 
hosted over 40 in-house lectures and demonstrations by 
trial lawyers and experts who generously donated their time 
and expertise. The office invites members of the private bar 
to attend many of the trainings. The office received four 
scholarships to send felony lawyers to an intensive two- 
week trial training at the National Criminal Defense College. 

Research Unit 

The Research Unit provides research, writing, appellate 
support and assistance to attorneys and maintains the law 
library. The unit performs legal research and writing, writes 

motions (requests for 
court action), handles 
pre-trial writs and 
appeals. The Research 
Unit also contributes 
materials to in-office 
training programs and 
presents workshops on 
legal writing, research 
Deputy Public Defender Chris Hite reviews anc | new laws 

a case file with clerk Thelma-Flores Arroyo. 

Ball Unit 

The bail unit was initiated in 2003 as part of Sheriff Michael 
Hennessey's County Jail Population Reduction Plan. The bail 
unit conducts in-depth interviews with the client and family 
members and develops a release plan, which is presented 
to the court. In 2003, the unit brought 150 motions in 
felony cases, and obtained release in 63% of the cases, 
saving the City $1 million in incarceration costs. 



Investigation Unit 




The Investigation Unit researches the facts of a case. 
Investigators visit crime scenes, take photos of injuries, 
gather important docu- 
ments and records, track 
down and interview wit- 
nesses, and subpoena 
them to appear in court. 
In 2003, the unit 
responded to 1 ,537 attor- 
ney requests, served 
1 ,007 subpoenas, and 
conducted 2,365 inter- 
views. 




Manager Kathy Logan meets with 
investigator Jennifer Jennings. 



Clerical, Word Processing & 
Information Technology Unit 



The Clerical Unit is responsible for creating, maintaining and 
archiving over 30,000 client files each year. The unit files 
attorney motions (requests for court action), and delivers 

missives to and from 
other criminal justice 
agencies, and staffs 
courtrooms. In 2003, the 
Word Processing Unit 
transcribed 513 witness 
statements. The unit's 
phone operators put a 
public face on the office, 
and answer thousands of 
telephone calls the Public 
Defender's Office receives each year. The Information 
Technology Unit provides technical support for the office's 
computer and information systems. 




Public Defender Sangeeta Sinha discusses a case 
with clerk Judy Liu and paralegal Tony Sosa. 



The Paralegal Unit 



In response to the Controller's study which recommended 
that the office hire paralegals to reduce attorneys' workloads, 
10 paralegals were hired in 2003. The paralegals obtain 
documents, organize trial binders, create court exhibits, 
review and summarize court transcripts, and assist lawyers 
in preparing for trial. 



Building A World Class Defender's Office 






Volunteer Attorney Program 




Pillsbury Winthrop associate Blaine Green (c) 

pictured with Deputy Public Defenders (I to r) 

Alex Lillien, Managing Attorney Jean Amabile, 

Helena Kim and Christy Chandler. 



For over 20 years, the 

office has had a "loaner" 

program where private 

firms loan associates and 

partners to work in the 

Public Defender's office, 

where they have the 

opportunity to handle 

a criminal caseload and 

try cases. The program 

requires a minimum 

four-month, full-time 

commitment. Attorneys are assigned to the misdemeanor 

unit, and handle a partial misdemeanor caseload. The attorneys 

receive extensive training in trial skills, evidence and 

courtroom protocol. In 2003, eight volunteer attorneys 

participated in the Volunteer Attorney Program. 

"My time as a deputy public defender through the volunteer 
attorney program was both intense and rewarding. I tried 
five jury trials. The gratitude from clients and support from 
co-workers has made the experience especially satisfying. 
I return to my firm a more skilled trial lawyer, having honed 
my trial skills. " 

- Blaine Green, Commercial Litigator, 
Pillsbury Winthrop 



Speaker's Bureau 



Volunteer Intern Program 



The San Francisco Public Defender's Volunteer Internship 
Program (VIP) provides internship opportunities for law 
students, paralegal students, college students and 
volunteers who are interested in receiving hands-on 
experience meeting with clients, writing motions and 
assisting the attorneys in trial. Students apply to participate 
in the office's fall, spring or summer internship programs. 
Last year, 174 law students and volunteers from across 
the United States and from England, Ireland, and Germany, 
provided over 50,000 work hours to support the office. 

7 have volunteered at the Public Defender's office on a 
part-time basis for the past four years. My background as 
a research scientist has proved extremely helpful to the 
lawyers I have worked with. My greatest satisfaction is 
being able to help people at a critical time in their lives. 
I would highly recommend the experience to anyone 
who is interested." 

- Louise Swig, 

Public Defender Volunteer 



The Public Defender's office often provides speakers to 
groups and public events. During 2003, Public Defender 
Jeff Adachi and members of his staff spoke at conferences, 
meetings, community 



meetings, high school 
and law school campuses 
throughout the Bay Area. 
Also, Hall of Justice tours 
were offered to elemen- 
tary, middle and high 
school students. 




Fourth graders from Charles Drew Elementary 
School participate in a mock trial. 



"Thank you for the tour. 
I had a good time. What I 

liked the most was when we got to play in the courtroom. I 
like your office and now I know what I want to do. I want to 
be a lawyer. I hope we can do it again. " 
- Kayla, age 9 

Equal Justice Campaign 

In July 2003, the Public Defender's office began an 
educational campaign to celebrate the importance of equal 
justice and to educate the public on the role of the Public 
Defender. The campaign features billboards and bus shelter 
posters in San Francisco. The campaign is co-sponsored 
by the office of former Mayor Willie Brown, Jr., the Bar 
Association of San Francisco, and law firms and private 
companies that have donated money or billboard space 
for the campaign. 




Posters and billboards publicizing defender services 
appeared in San Francisco neighborhoods. 



Helping Ex-Offenders Turn Their Lives Around 



w 



ith over 160,000 prisoners In 33 state prisons, California 
has the largest prison population in the country. Sentencing 
laws such as the Three Strikes Law" — which allows a 
prosecutor to seek a life sentence for a person who has two 
prior serious felonies — has caused this swell in the prison 
population, which has jumped nearly 500 percent in the past 
20 years. With over 121,000 parolees statewide, it is imperative 
that new alternatives are developed to help ex-offenders turn 
their lives around when they are released from prison or 
county jail. 

Street-to-Work Program 

In July 2003, the Public Defender began referring clients to 
"Street-to-Work," a new program which provides employment 
alternatives to incarceration for persons aged 1 8-30 charged 
with first-time, low-level drug sales offenses. Participants who 
successfully complete the intensive eighteen-month program 
have their felony convictions dismissed. In its first year, Street- 
to-Work admitted 53 people, trained them, and found them 
jobs in the social service and construction industries. 

Educational Court 

Educational Court, established in 1 996, is a highly successful 
program that provides persons charged with first-time drug 
sales offenses with the opportunity to complete their high 
school or college education. To date, over 200 individuals 
have successfully graduated from the program, with an 1 1% 
recidivism rate. Many have received GED and high school 
diplomas and continued with their higher education. In 2003, 
the Public Defender worked with the District Attorney and 
Pre-Trial Diversion to revise the program as part of the 
consolidated Drug Court. 

"When I first started Educational Court, I didn 't take it seriously. 
But (the program) kept on me and wouldn 't let me get away 
with anything. Now I have my license, my GED degree, and 
this case is going to be dismissed. Thank you all so much, 
I will never forget all that you did. " 

- K.D. , age 21, graduated from 
Educational Court October 2, 2003 

"My son and I now have a one bedroom apartment. I am back 
at school to get my Registered Nursing certification and am 
doing really well. " 

- T.T., age 24, graduated from 
Educational Court on July 1 7, 2003 



Clean Slate 



The Clean Slate program helps people clear their record of past 
convictions and arrests. A criminal record can severely affect 
a person's ability to find employment as well as eligibility for 
student loans and government-owned housing. In 2003, 1 ,057 
people took advantage of the office's Clean Slate program. 

Clean Slate services are available without appointment every 
Tuesday from 9-1 1 :00 am at 555 Seventh Street, or every 
Thursday, from 9- 1 2:00 pm at the Southeast Community 
Facility Commission, 1800 Oakdale, in Bayview-Hunters Point. 
No appointment is necessary. For more information, 
call (415)553-9337. 

"Just a note of thanks for your help in my efforts to have my 
record expunged. I now have a clear record as I work towards 
being a social worker. Your help was greatly appreciated. " 

-A.j. 



The Innocence Project 



The Innocence Project investigates claims of factual innocence 
and provides DNA testing of evidence. The Innocence Project 
attorney investigates new evidence, witnesses, and records 
that may lead to the client's exoneration, and conducts prison 
outreach. In 2003, the Innocence Project investigated 36 cases. 

The Exonerated: John Tennison and Anton Goff 

In 1989, 17-year-old John Tennison and 20-year-old Anton Goff 
were arrested by police in connection with a homicide-gang 
shooting that occurred in San Francisco's Sunnydale neighbor- 
hood. Based on the eye-witness testimonies of two teenage 
girls, both men were both convicted and sentenced to life in 
prison. Post-conviction investigation performed by the Public 
Defender's office revealed that another man had confessed to 
the crime to police and that witnesses had told police that 
Goff and Tennison were innocent. This evidence was withheld 

from the defense, 
and was never heard 
by the jury. Through 
the efforts of 
lawyers from the 
San Francisco law firm 
Keker and Van Nest, 
Goff and Tennison 
were finally ordered 
released by a federal 
court in August 2003. 




John Tennison, Anton Goff, pictured right to left 
with Luther Brock and Albert Johnson, whojike Goff 
and Tennison, were each imprisoned crimes they did 
not commit. 



10 



Public Defender 2003 Case Statistics 



1 otal Cases Handled by the Public Defender's Office (2003) 
Total # of Cases Handled: 22,993 

Felony Unit 

Total Cases: 10.363 

Arraignments: 4,312 

Dismissed: 732 

Diverted: 503 

Cases Resolved by Guilty Plea Before 

Preliminary Hearing: 1 ,383 

Total Guilty Pleas: 1,599 

Number of Cases Held to Answer: 472 

Cases Set for Trial: 516 

Jury Trials: 48 

Average Cases Per Attorney (Annual): 168 

Average Caseload Per Attorney (At any given time): 56 

Type of Case 

Homicides: 14 

Sex Offenses: 56 

Violent or Serious Felonies: 663 

Burglary, Theft, Receiving Stolen Property: 529 

Drug Offenses: 2,537 

Miscellaneous: 500 

Probation Violations: 1,747 

Misdemeanor Unit 

Total Cases: 12,822 

Arraignments: 4,824 

Cases Dismissed: 1,708 

Cases Diverted: 1,652 

Cases Resolved by Guilty Plea Before Trial: 1,374 

Cases Set for Trial: 296 

Trials: 86 

Average Cases Per Attorney (Annual): 301 

Average Caseload Per Attorney (At any given time): 125 

Juvenile Unit 

Total Cases: 1 ,483 

Court Appearances: 2,934 

Court Trials: 30 

Contested Dispositions: 28 

Fitness Hearings: 10 

Average Cases Per Attorney (Annual): 245 

Average Caseload Per Attorney (At any given time): 54 

Total Educational Placements: 189 

Total Youth Authority Commitments: 3 

Mental Health Unit: 

Total Cases: 3,500 



Civil 

Certification Review: 2,586 

Conservatorship: 243 

Renewal of Conservatorship: 536 

Writs: 75 

Total Civil Cases: 3,440 

Criminal 

Maximum Term Extensions: 14 

Writ for Conditional Release.- 3 

Restoration of Sanity: 5 

Conditional Release/Outpatient Parole 

1370 Top Out: 7 

Total Criminal Cases: 46 

Behavior Health Court: 

Total Cases: 1 1 5 

Total Number of Graduates: 20 



17 



Drug Court 

Total Cases: 1 ,000 

Proposition 36 

Total Cases: 326 

Substance Abuse Unit 

Clients evaluated: 400 clients 

Clients placed into treatment programs: 52 

Street-to-Work: 63 

Clean Slate: 

Cases: 1,057 
Motions: 558 

Innocence Project 

Total Letters: 107 
Referrals: 46 

Closed Investigations: 27 
Active Cases: 36 
DNA Tested: 3 

Investigation Unit 

Attorney Investigative Requests: 1 ,537 
Subpoenas Served: 1 ,007 
Interviews: 2,365 

Research Unit 

Appeals: 8 

Petitions for Writs: 23 

Motions to Suppress Evidence: 1 7 

Motions to Set Aside Information: 45 

Legal Memoranda: 45 

Miscellaneous Motions: 39 

Recruitment/ Volunteer Intern Program 

Total Interns: 1 79 




11 



Public Defender Staff 



Public Defender: Jeff Adachi 

Chief Attorney: Teresa Caffese 

Executive Assistant to Public Defender: Angela Auyong 

Felony Managing Attorneys: Steve Gayle &. Maria Zamora 

Misdemeanor Managing Attorney: Jean Amabile 

Juvenile Managing Attorney: Patricia Lee 

Mental Health Managing Attorney: Robert Bunker 

Research Managing Attorney: Chris Gauger 

Director of Training: Martin Sabelli 

Director of Investigations and Support Services: Kathy Logan 

Director of Interns and Recruitment: Kathy Asada 



Felony Unit: 

Stephanie Adrakas 
Gabriel Bassan 
Frank Brass 
Linda Colfax 
Henry Doering 
Robert Evangelista 
Sandy Feinland 
Peter Fitzpatrick 
Azita Ghafourpour 
Greg Goldman 
Carla Gomez 
Danielle Harris 
Kleigh Hathaway 
Elizabeth Hilton 
Christopher Hite 

Misdemeanor Unit: 

Christina Alvarez 
Christy Chandler 
Jonah Chew 
Kisha Cordero 
Monica Cummins 
Chris Hipps 

Juvenile Unit: 

Roger Chan 
Greg Feldman 
Emily Goldman 

Mental Health Unit: 

Kara Chien 

Research Unit: 

Jennifer Cosgrove 

Drug Court: 

Armando Miranda 



Terrence Howzell 
Daro lnouye 
Katherine Isa 
Mark Iverson 
Mark Jacobs 
Jennifer Johnson 
Susan Kaplan 
Lisa Katz 
Sujung Kim 
Susan Leff 
Jennifer Levin 
Alex Lilien 
Mary Mallen 
Kwixuan Maloof 
Randall Martin 

Alisa Kim 
Helena Kim 
Tal Klement 
Adam Lipson 
Eric Luce 
Seith Meisels 

Debra Hoffmann 
Jan Lecklikner 
Norene Lew 



Dorothy Bischoff 



Artricia Moore 
Steve Olmo 
Craig Peters 
Stephen Rosen 
Mel Santos 
Simin Shamji 
Kauser Siddiqui 
Sangeeta Sinha 
Niki Solis 
Phoenix Streets 
Rafael Trujillo 
Tyler Vu 
Phong Wang 
Doug Welch 
Rebecca Young 

Brian Pearlman 
Aleem Raja 
Diana Rosenstein 
Stephanie Wargo 
Jacque Wilson 



William Maas 
Rebecca Marcus 
Stephen Zollman 



Proposition 36: 

Jami Tillotson 

Substance Abuse: 

Shannon Bennett 

Clean Slate Program: 

DeMarris Evans 



Eldemira Alfaro 



Louise Winterstein 



Innocence Project: 

Paul Myslin 

Investigations Unit 

Carolyn Hanna 
Jennifer Jennings 
Pat Leary 
Ricardo Lopez 
Karen Masi 
Jose Mendoza 

Social Worker Unit: 

Marynella Woods (Juvenile) 

Administrative Support Unit 

Eunice Kaneko (Bookkeeper) 

Clerical Unit: 

Thelma Flores- Arroyo 
Ana Guevara 
Virginia Libiran 
Judy Liu 

Word Processing Unit 



Christina Pena 
Nigel Phillips 
Lawrence Porchia 
Diane Rae 
Jill Schroeder 
Jill Shaw 



Angela Matthews 
Lynn Mechanic 
Mary Muao 
Luz Rodriguez 



Rosario Carbajal 
Emily Ng 

Paralegal Unit: 

Lori Flowers 
Jennifer Guinan 
Nicole Holland 
Andrew Koltuniak 



Sandra Reyna 
Cerina Santos 

Joan Kruckewitt 
Brendan Loftus 
Tiffany McClean 



Ricardo Martinez 



Research Fellows: 

Justyn Lezin 

Information/Technology Unit: 

Thomas Brown Rene Manzo 



Volunteer Program: 

Louise Swig 

Public Relations Assistance: 

Marie Mallare &. Miriam Goodman 



Sandra Smutz 
Gary Sourifman 
Robert Stemme 
Everson Thompson 
Debora Warren 



Cynthia Watkins 
Wynona Winterstein 
Joanna Voltz 



Kenneth Olivencia 
Anthony Sosa 
Michelle Tong-Choyce 



CONTACT INFORMATION: 

Office 8. Directory (415)553-1671 
Main Fax (415)553-9810 

Front Desk (415) 553-8128 



Investigation Fax 
Juvenile Division 
Juvenile Fax 



(415) 553-9646 
(415) 753-7600 
(415) 566-3030 



Clean Slate 
Intern Programs 



(415) 553-9337 
(415) 553-9630 



The Public Defender would like to thank the following individuals, law firms and organizations 
for their sponsorship of the EQUAL JUSTICE CAMPAIGN: 


Farella, Braun JL Martel Crls Argedas 
Heller, Ehrman LLP Jeff Bleisch 
O'Melveny &>. Myers LLP James Collins 
Pillsbury Winthrop LLP Douglas Young 






Family of Robert Nicco 

Patricia Lee &. Gil Graham 

Bar Association of San Francisco 

Viacom &. Clear Channel 



12 



1 here can be no equality before the law 
where an experienced and skillful prosecutor, 
backed by the power of the state and the entire 
resources of the police, is matched against a 
poor and often friendless defendant, confined in 
jail, unable to understand even the simplest 
legal implications of the case, without the help 
of competent counsel, is powerless to marshal 
any facts to controvert them." 

- Robert Nicco, Former SF Public Defender 



In December 2003, the Public Defender's office designated one of its conference rooms 
as the Honorable Robert Nicco Meeting Room. 



n Francisco 



^blic Defender's Office 



Wm rn— i — T> i ' 



« i 




Annual Report 2004 

A YEAR OF ACTION 



1 he mission of the San Francisco Public Defender's 
Office is to protect and defend the rights of our indigent 
clients through effective, vigorous, compassionate, and 

creative legal advocacy." 



Cover Image "Hall of Justice. 850 Bryant Street" 
by: Debra Walker £ 2005 

This report was not printed at public expense. 



Message from the Public Defender 



1 



i004 was a year of action. In January, following 
the release of six reports by nationwide experts document- 
ing the egregious conditions at the California Youth 
Authority (CYA), the Public Defender's office called for a 
city-wide moratorium against sentencing juveniles to the 
CYA. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors unani- 
mously passed a resolution supporting the moratorium, and 
1 1 counties followed San Francisco's lead. The office 
continued its advocacy by testifying at California state 
senate hearings on the CYA and hosting San Francisco's 
fust juvenile justice summit. By the year's end, Governor 
Swartzenegger called for wide ranging reforms in the 
treatment of juveniles at the CYA. 

The Public Defender's Office balanced its public 
advocacy with strong and aggressive legal representation 
in the courtroom. This year, the Public Defender's office 
represented 22,000 adult clients and 1,500 juveniles. To 
help meet this Herculean challenge, the Public Defender 
instituted new efficiencies to improve the quality of legal 
representation. By setting workload standards, defenders 
have more time to investigate and prepare their cases while 
eliminating costly delays. Annual performance evaluations 
have been implemented to measure employee performance, 
and in-house training programs keep staff abreast of new 
changes in law. 

The office's emphasis on trial work resulted in nearly 
200 jury trials, from misdemeanor to homicide cases, 
compared to 134 in the previous year. The office's goal of 
trying more cases reflects our belief that attorneys who try 
cases ultimately obtain better results for their clients. 



The office also represented over 3,500 mentally ill 
clients in incompetency hearings, civil commitments and 
conservatorships and continued its work in the Behavioral 
Health Court, which offers intensive, supervised mental 
health treatment to its participants. 

This year saw the expansion of the Clean Slate 
program, which helps rehabilitated ex-offenders clear their 
past criminal records, into additional neighborhoods 
throughout the city. Our two drop-in centers helped over 
1,500 people last year. Clean Slate also joined with Mayor 
Gavin Newsom's Project Homeless Connect to provide 
expungement services for the homeless and others in need. 

I am proud to announce that, with the Zellerbach 
Family Foundation's support, the office has established the 
first "Children of Incarcerated Parents" program, to help 
minor children of a jailed parent access support services 
and assistance. 

In 2004, the office launched a new community 
initiative, called "MAGIC"(Mobilization for Adolescent 
Growth in our Communities), aimed at providing positive 
opportunities for youth to keep them from entering the 
juvenile justice system. 

Finally, I want to thank my staff for their superb work 
and dedication, and we look forward to continuing to 
making a difference in the years ahead. 



Sincerely, 



4^4- 



Jeff Adachi 
Public Defender 




DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
FEB 1 8 2005 



SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Balancing the Scales of Justice: the Right to a Jury Trial 



the truth <>/ every <a cusation against </ criminal 
defendant should afterwards be confirmed by the unanimous 
suffrage <</ twelve oj his (or her) equals and neighbors. " 

Justice tntonin Scalia, 
Blakely v. Washington (2004) 



One of the most sacred rights we enjoy in a free 
society is the right to a jury trial. Every day, public defend- 
ers gnc meaning to this right by providing legal represen- 
tation to indigent persons who want to have their cases 
heard in court. 

The right to a jury trial, whose origin traces back to 
the Magna Carta, was incorporated into the Sixth Amend- 
ment to the U.S. Constitution in 1791. However, because 
most criminal defendants could not afford to hire lawyers, 
the right was a hollow one. This changed in 1963, when 
the U.S. Supreme Court held that a Florida man named 
Clarence Earl Gideon was entitled to a lawyer to try his 
ease at the state's expense. In 2004, the U.S. Supreme 
Court, in another historic decision, Blakely v. Washington, 
further expanded these rights by requiring that any fact 
used by a judge to increase a person's sentence be decided 
by a jury, not a judge. 

This is not to say that all cases go, or should go, to 
trial. The vast majority of cases are resolved by plea 
bargaining, dismissal, or participation in diversion pro- 
grams. However, it is important that every case, whether it 
proceeds to trial or not, is thoroughly investigated and that 



all applicable legal motions are raised. Only in this way 
can a person make an intelligent decision as to whether to 
plead guilty or go to trial. 

Each client must be fully informed as to the conse- 
quences of the charges and the status of their case. Public 
defenders spend a great deal of time meeting with clients, 
talking with them about their cases, and establishing a 
relationship of confidence and trust. Defenders must also 
work closely with their investigator, who assists the 
attorney in interviewing and subpoenaing witnesses, and 
locating important evidence and documents. If the case 
proceeds to trial, the defender must prepare for jury 
selection, evidentiary hearings, pretrial motions, opening 
statements, direct and cross-examinations, and final 
arguments. 

Public defenders must also work under heavy 
caseloads — often two to three times more than what a 
private lawyer typically handles. This requires superior 
organization, and the support of a dedicated and commit- 
ted support staff. Defenders are encouraged to share their 
ideas, knowledge and experience with one another and 
work together as a team. 

In 2004, the office's felony unit, comprised of 45 
lawyers, handled 5,973 cases and tried a total of 51 jury 
trials. The felony unit handled 1,574 probation violations 
assigned to the office. The office's misdemeanor unit, 
comprised of 17 lawyers, handled a total of 12,1 19 cases 
in 2004, and tried a total of 137 jury trials. 







Depufr.- Public Defender Sandy Feiniand questions a panel of prospective jurors. 



Benchmarks for Justice 



I, 



n January 2003, at the request of the Public De- 
fender, the Controller conducted a four-month study of the 
office and issued a series of recommendations on how to 
improve its operations. These "benchmarks for justice" 
now form the foundation of the Public Defender's three- 
year strategic plan. 

Implementation of Public Defender's 
Strategic Three-Year Plan 

In 2003-2004, the office implemented the bulk of the 
recommendations of the Controller's study. In late 2003, 
the office established caseload standards to better manage 
workloads and give attorneys sufficient time to work on 
their cases. The Controller's report also recommended 
hiring paralegal staff to help reduce attorneys' workloads. 
By January 2004, the office had created a 10-person 
paralegal unit. Finally, the Controller recommended using 
technology to automate office work, promote infomiation 
sharing and streamline repetitive tasks. In response, the 
office designed a comprehensive technology plan to 
provide its attorneys and staff with modern computer 
equipment and training. 

Institution of Performance Evaluations 

The office instituted a comprehensive annual perfor- 
mance evaluation of all staff. Attorneys are evaluated in 
four key areas: client relations, research/motion work, trial 
skills and teamwork. All staff also submit a self-evalua- 
tion, and work with their managers to set individual goals 
and objectives. The manager then meets with the employee 
to review the evaluation. In 2004, the office completed 
140 evaluations. 

Creation of a Forensic Support Unit 

The science of DNA has played an increasingly 
significant role in criminal cases. Formerly the exception, 
the office now routinely represents clients where the 
primary evidence against them is DNA. It is necessary 
that the attorneys in the office be trained on the complexi- 
ties of the science of DNA, and that the office retain 
qualified staff to work on these cases. To this end, the 
office has created a forensic support unit to assist attorneys 
who are handling DNA cases. 



Reducing Indigent Defense Costs 

In these difficult budget times, it is imperative that all 
City departments work to identify savings and cost effi- 
ciencies. The Public Defender's office, together with the 
Bar Association of San Francisco and the Mayor's Budget 
Office, continued efforts, begun in 2003, to reduce the 
number of cases referred to private counsel. The Public 
Defender also worked with the Trial Courts to design a 
reimbursement program for clients who had the ability to 
pay some, but not all, of the costs of appointed counsel. 

Building an Office Intranet 

This year, the office built an intranet (internal shared 
database) to support the work of its attorneys and staff. 
The office intranet contains forms, motions, practice 
guides, trial briefs and other documents commonly used by 
the attorney in representing clients. The intranet is an 
invaluable tool that has increased efficiency by providing a 
repository for the collective work of the office. 

Enhancing Trial Skills 

In October, the office hosted a weekend-long Public 
Defender Trial College which featured nationally known 
trial attorneys from the private bar and other public de- 
fender offices who generously donated their time and 
expertise. The office also received two scholarships to 
send felony lawyers to an intensive two-week trial training 
through the National Criminal Defense College. 




Deputy Public Defender Stephanie Wargo 
discusses a case with Judge Newton Lam and 
Asssistant District Attorney Michael Sullivan. 



Leading Juvenile Justice 



Banner Year for Juvenile Justice 



The increased work space has allowed the office to recruit 
volunteers and interns which has increased staff productiv- 
ity. 



1 



"■- 



JS AM P ft AM CCS Cjp -:%> ap» t= 



ifltTMl, 



2004 has been a banner year for the office's efforts to 
reform the juvenile justice system. This year, the office's 
juvenile unit represented 1,472 youth charged in juvenile 
court. The unit is staffed by nine attorneys, an educa- 
tional placement specialist, two support staff, three social 
workers, and one investigator. 

The juvenile unit's holistic approach includes social 
services, educational advocacy, mental health and place- 
ment services. By helping youth and their families iden- 
tify, treat and overcome the core problems that bring them 
into the juvenile justice system, it is less likely the youth 
will return to jail or become involved in the adult court 
system in the future. 

Opening of the Public Defender's 
Juvenile Justice Center 

For five decades, the Public Defender's juvenile unit 
was located on the ground level of the Youth Guidance 
Center. The unit's offices were cramped into former 
shower stalls, without confidential meeting rooms for 
clients and their families. 

In March 2004, the office opened the Juvenile Justice 
Center at 258A Laguna Honda Boulevard. While the 
office still maintains offices at the Youth Guidance Center, 
the new space has allowed greater community access to 
public defender services and a more welcoming and 
confidential environment for clients and their families. 



Moratorium Against Commitments 
to the California Youth Authority 

In January 2004, six reports, commissioned by the 
state Attorney General, were released. The reports, 
authored by independent national juvenile justice experts, 
condemned the California Youth Authority's (CYA) 

treatment of the 5,000 
youth entrusted to it. 
Despite a budget of 
$80,000 per youth, the 
experts found that the 
CYA was failing in its 
mission "to reform 
and rehabilitate 
youth," and was not 
providing basic 
education, mental 
health and medical 
treatment to its wards. 




Public Defender Jeff Adachi 

testifies before a Senate 

subcommittee investigating 

abuses at the California Youth 

Authority. 



In response, the Public Defender's office drafted a 
resolution which was presented to the Board of Supervi- 
sors by Supervisor Tom Ammiano. The resolution, which 
called for a moratorium on sending youth to CYA until 
conditions improved, passed unanimously. The Public 
Defender also testified before the California state senate, 
which held extensive hearings on the need for prison and 
CYA reform, and held a statewide CYA roundtable with 
public defenders from throughout the state to discuss legal 
strategies and identify alternatives to CYA. 

The office also formed a special unit to investigate 
the cases of all youth from San Francisco currently housed 
at CYA, and to find alternative placements. Of the 1 ,472 
youth the office represented in 2004, only one juvenile was 
sentenced to the California Youth Authority, and through 
the office's advocacy, the majority of youth previously 
sentenced to the Youth Authority have been returned to 
local community placements. 



Leading Juvenile Justice 



Lamar had been in the juvenile justice system since he was 12. 
Growing up, Lamar had experienced extensive physical abuse, 
which left deep psychological scars. Lamar had difficulty 
trusting others, controlling his anger and obeying rules. After 
numerous arrests for theft and drug offenses, he was committed 
to Log Cabin ranch. Lamar s public defender social worker 
introduce him to SQUIRES, a program where youthful offenders 
meet with San Quentin "lifers " who counsel them to avoid the 
criminal justice system. This experience profoundly changed 
Lamar. He became head of the student council at the ranch, 
obtained his GED and began excelling socially and academi- 
cally With the help of his public defender social worker. Lamar 
was placed in a job training program, attended therapy sessions 
and continued his involvement in SQUIRES. Lamar is now 
succeeding in a way he says he never imagined possible. 

Public Defender's Juvenile Justice Summit 



On April 21, 2004, the Public Defender's Office held 
its first Juvenile Justice Summit at the Civic Center Main 
Library. Entitled "Raising Up Our Youth: Building Safer 
Communities," the one-day summit brought 200 youth, 
parents and youth advocates together to discuss the diffi- 
cult issues confronting young people in the juvenile justice 
system. Topics discussed by the panels included how to 
work with girls in the juvenile justice system, creating 
collaborative working relationships among youth agencies, 
and the need for better mental health services for incarcer- 
ated youth. The summit was televised in its entirety on 
SFGOV TV. 




Defenders Marynella Woods and Jan Lecklikner lead a panel 
discussion on the treatment of girls in the juvenile justice system. 



Improving Support Services for Youth 

For many years, the Public Defender's juvenile unit 
was staffed by one social worker to serve the needs of over 
one thousand children. This created a situation where the 
attorneys had to pick and choose which youths would 
benefit from the social worker's services. On July 1, 2004, 



the California Trial Courts adopted Rule 1479, which 
expanded the duties of a juvenile attorney to include 
advocating "that the child receive care, treatment, and 
guidance consistent with his or her best interest." To 
implement Rule 1479, the office hired two social workers, 
who will work exclusively with youth, focusing on their 
mental health, placement and educational needs. 

Spreading MAGIC in our Communities 

"MAGIC has created a sense of hope in the Bayview community 
that has not been around for a long time. When 1 am in the 
presence of MAGIC. I know something real is going on. With 
MAGIC bringing us all together on behalf of our kids, there is 
NOTHING we cannot achieve. " 

- Barbara Howard, Women ,'v Chamber of Commerce 

Following the 2004 juvenile justice summit, the 
Public Defender's office spearheaded Mobilization for 
Adolescent Growth in our Communities (MAGIC) to 
implement a comprehensive, community-driven juvenile 
justice planning process created to facilitate a continuum 
of effective support services for youth. MAGIC's goal is 
to foster greater cooperation and collaboration between the 
juvenile justice system, youth, families, schools, health 
and mental health service providers, and community youth 
agencies. Presently, over 45 community based organiza- 
tions are represented within MAGIC. 

MAGIC began its organizing efforts in Bayview 
Hunters Point, where the largest number of youth in San 
Francisco reside. In its first year, MAGIC sponsored a 
Back-to-School backpack giveaway which was attended by 
over 1,000 children and families, a mentor fair, and 
workshops for youth agencies. In the future, MAGIC 
hopes to expand its efforts to other San Francisco neigh- 
borhoods. For more information, please visit 
www.bayviewmagic.com. 




Defender Carol Chodroff with youth who 

attended MAGIC's Back-to-School event. 



Building a World-Class Public Defender's Office 



felony and Misdemeanor Trial Units 

./. "., was in the wrong phn e at the wrong time. Positively 
identified by the victim two days after a shooting, Jose was 
arrested/or three counts <>l lirst degree attempted murder and 
three < ounts qj assault with a gun, and faced life in prison if 
* onvit /<■(/ Uthough Jose had no criminal history and was 
employed, he was failed pending his trial. Jose's public defender 
and investigator performed extensive investigations and 
determined that Jose was the victim ofmisidentification. Ii was 
not until the jury was sworn and the trial was ready to begin that 
the Putrid Attorney agreed that the victim had pointed his finger 
at the wrong man. All charges against Jose were dismissed and 
he was reunited with his family. 

The attorneys in the felony and misdemeanor units 
handle the bulk of eases assigned to the office: over 6,000 
felony cases and 12,000 misdemeanor cases each year. 
The felony unit handled 20 homicides (30% increase from 
the previous year), 56 sex offenses, 685 serious felonies, 
2.444 drug cases, 516 theft offenses and 596 miscellaneous 
eases. Of the 4.399 new felony cases handled by the unit, 
940 were dismissed, 493 were sent to diversion programs 
and 1.683 resulted in a plea of guilty. In addition, the 
felony unit handled 1,574 probation violations. Of the 
5.71 1 new cases handled by the misdemeanor unit, 3,166 
were dismissed or diverted, and 1,290 were resolved by 
plea before trial. (See page 10 for jury trial statistics.) 

Public Defender Training Programs 

The Public Defender's training programs ensure that 
the office's attorneys and staff continue to improve their 
skills. In 2004, the office offered 44 in-house lectures, 
demonstrations and interactive workshops to its staff. 
Skills taught in the trainings were reinforced through 
individualized case conferences and one-on-one 



Research Unit 




When a legal issue arises in a case, the relevant law 
must be thoroughly researched and, often, a legal brief 
must be prepared. When the defender receives a decision 
from a judge which he or she believes is incorrect, the 
defender may appeal to a higher court. The Research Unit 
fulfills this essential function by writing and filing ap- 
peals, assisting attorneys in preparing briefs, and provid- 
ing advice to attorneys and staff. 

The Research Unit 
also argues appeals in the 
appellate courts as well as 
the California Supreme 
Court. Through its advo- 
cacy, the unit brings legal 
issues of importance before 
™ £^d£ ~" S i the court, and works with 

L , gl HQM other legal groups, such as 

■ «^^^BI^B the ACLU, to challenge 

r , , laws that affect the constitu- 

Defenders Dorothy Bischoff and . , . . ^ ~ , 

, r , tional rights or accused 




Norene Lew research a case. 



Investigation Unit 



persons. 



The investigator transforms a case file into a real-life 
event. Through visiting crime scenes, locating and 
interviewing witnesses, gathering documents and records 
and taking photographs, the investigator ascertains the 
facts used to defend the case. The investigator develops 
an investigation plan with 

the attorney, and then a _ ^—p—— 

reports back to the AwSfivW^^m ^m 

attorney as the investiga- 
tion is underway. 



In 2004, the unit 
responded to 2,016 
attorney investigation 
requests, served over 
1 ,200 subpoenas, and 
conducted 2,500 inter- 
views. 




Investigator Christina Peha 

and Managing Attorney Kathy 

Logan discuss a case. 



Judge James Warren leads a training at the Public Defender s Office. 



Building a World-Class Public Defender's Office 



Paralegal Unit 



Volunteer Attorney Program 



The paralegals assist attorneys in writing motions, 
creating trial exhibits, creating client social histories, 
gathering and organizing documents, requesting medical, 

psychiatric, and 
other records, 
preparing subpoe- 
nas, reviewing and 
summarizing 
documents, 
helping at trials, 
and perform a 
wide range of 
other clerical and 
legal functions. 




Paralegal Joan Kruckewitt selects 
clothing for a client s trial. 



Clerical, Word Processing & 
Information Technology Unit 



The Clerical Unit is responsible for creating, main- 
taining and archiving over 30,000 client files each year. 
The unit files attorney motions (requests for court action), 
delivers missives to and from other criminal justice agen- 
cies, and staffs 1 8 courtrooms. The Word Processing Unit 
provides accurate and precise transcriptions of witness 
statements. In 2004, the unit transcribed 602 witness 
statements. The Information Technology Unit provides 
technical support for the office's computer and information 
systems. 




"J thoroughly enjoyed my four-month stint as a deputy public 
defender. I tried five jury trials, and am returning to my firm as 
a more skilled trial lawyer. But the real thrill was working with 
the incredibly talented group of trial attorneys at the Public 
Defender s Office. I would highly recommend it. " 

-Tom Rector. Business Litigation, Jones Day 

The loaner program is a unique partnership where 
private sector law firms "loan" partners and associates to 
work in the San Francisco Public Defender's office. The 
loaners have an opportunity to try criminal jury trials and 
gain litigation skills. The program requires a minimum 
four-month, full-time commitment. Attorneys are as- 
signed to the misdemeanor unit, and handle a partial 
caseload. The attorneys receive extensive training in trial 
skills, evidence and courtroom protocol. In 2004, four 
volunteer attorneys, including lawyers from the law firms 
of Jones Day and Sedgwick participated in the program. 



Volunteer Intern Program 



The San Francisco Public Defender's Volunteer 
Internship Program (VIP) provides internship opportuni- 
ties for law students, paralegals, investigators, college 
students and volunteers who are interested in receiving 
hands-on experience meeting with clients, writing mo- 
tions, conducting investigations and assisting attorneys in 
trial. Students apply to participate in the office's fall, 
spring or summer internship programs. Last year, the 
office established a volunteer program for legal profes- 
sionals, recruiting jury consultants, medical experts and 
other professionals to work with defenders. 



In 2004, 244 law 
students and volunteers 
from across the United 
States and from other 
countries provided over 
70,000 work hours to 
support the office. To 
apply or for more 
information, please call 
(415)553-9630. 




Public defender interns obtain real 
life, hands-on criminal law 



Staff member John Tennison works the front desk. 



Treating, Not Punishing, Mental Illness and Drug Addiction 



M 



ental Health Unit 



Behavioral Health Court 



Jonathan n,n charged with misdemeanor criminal threats and 

resisting arrest He had a history oj menial illness, and was 
immediately placed in a psychiatric hospital. Jonathan 's deputy 
public defender determined that Jonathan had experienced a 
mental health breakdown and worked with Jonathan's family to 
find a community-based program that could provide intensive 
mental health treatment. Jonathan also enrolled in GED classes 
and eventually was able to more hack in with his family. His 
charges were dismissed. 



\lan\ poisons suffering from mental illness find 
themselves at the door of the criminal justice system. 
Given the scarcity of mental health resources, the criminal 
justice system has become the principal point of entry for 
thousands of persons in need of treatment. 

The Mental Health unit consists of two attorneys and 
i\\ o investigators. In 2004, the unit represented over 3,500 
clients in competency proceedings, civil commitments, and 
conservatorships. Some of these cases take months to 
resolve. The ultimate goal is to help the client transition 
from the criminal justice system to the mental health 
system. 

In 2004, the unit participated in the City's policy 
discussions on homelessness, authoring a report on the 
legal implications of a mandatory outpatient treatment for 
the Mayor's Homeless Ten- Year Council. The office is 
also participating in the implementation of Proposition 63 
(the Mental Health Services Act), which provides state 
funding to counties for mental health services. 




Defender Rafael Tritjil/o discusses a case with DA Tiffany Gibson. 



The Behavioral Health Court offers intensive, court 
supervised mental heath treatment to persons charged with 
crimes related to mental illness. A unique collaboration 
between the Trial Courts, the Public Defender, the District 
Attorney and the Department of Public Health, the court is 
now in its second year. Once a week, a judge meets with 
attorneys, treatment providers, social workers and psy- 
chologists to develop a comprehensive mental health 
treatment plan for each participant, which may include 
residential or outpatient treatment, housing and medica- 
tion. Upon successful completion of the treatment plan, 
the participant graduates from the court, earning a dis- 
missal of the charges or a reduction in sentence. 

Drug Court, Proposition 36 

and Substance Abuse Treatment J 

"When I came to Drug Court in March 2004, I was homeless 
and HIV positive. I was 51 years old and had been using drugs 
since I was 18. I entered residential treatment one month later, 
and now am drug free. I reunited with my family, and am living 
in the community and taking college classes. My life has been 
saved by Drug Court. Thank you. " 

L.M., graduated from Drug Court, December 2004 

The Drug Court was created in 1 995 to provide drug 
counseling and treatment to persons who find themselves 
in the criminal justice system because they are addicted to 
drugs and/or alcohol. In 2004, over 1,000 people partici- 
pated in Drug Court. Participants are required to complete 
a rigorous, one year program which may include residen- 
tial or outpatient treatment, meetings with drug counselors, 
group counseling, acupuncture, drug testing, and regular 
trips to court so the judge can monitor their progress. 
Clients who successfully complete Drug Court have their 
criminal charges dismissed. 

Proposition 36 Court allows persons convicted of 
drug possession charge to enter a treatment program 
instead of jail or prison. In 2004, the office represented 
1,079 clients in this program which is funded from a state 
grant administered by the Department of Public Health. 

The Public Defender also employs two social work- 
ers in its Substance Abuse unit who assist clients in finding 
appropriate placements in outpatient and residential 
treatment programs. 



8 



Helping Ex-Offenders Turn Their Lives Around 



"The size of the (California) prison population has 

resulted in part from tough-on-crime sentencing policies of 
recent decades, hut the state has also been widely criticized for 
fueling the numbers by not doing a better job of preparing 
inmates to return to society. " 



Clean Slate Program 



"Thank you so much for the Clean Slate program, lie were able 
to find jobs for many of our clients once they had their criminal 
record cleared. " 

- Marjorie Ann Williams. 

Visitation Valley Job Employment <£ Training Program 



— 2004 Governor s California Performance Review 

With over 160,000 prisoners in 33 state prisons, 
California has the largest and most expensive prison 
system in the country. California's prison population has 
risen nearly 500 percent in the past 20 years. With over 
121,000 parolees statewide, it is imperative that new 
alternatives are developed to help ex-offenders turn their 
lives around when they are released from prison or county 
jail. 

Earlier this year, the governor's California Perfor- 
mance Review committee released a series of recommen- 
dations calling for systemwide reform of the prison 
system. The panel found that more than half of the people 
released from prison return within two years, and that the 
prisons were failing to train and treat prisoners to help 
them remain crime-free and successfully integrate into 
society. 

In 2004, the Public Defender's office played a 
leading role in advocating for statewide prison reform. In 
addition to authoring opinion articles on the issue, the 
Public Defender co-sponsored the Peace and Justice 
Summit in San Francisco, which brought together individu- 
als and organizations to discuss policy issues relating to 
formerly incarcerated persons. 




Defender Kwixuan Ma/oof gives advice to a client. 



A criminal conviction can severely affect a person's 
ability to find employment as well as their eligibility for 
student loans and government-owned housing. The Clean 
Slate program was instituted by the Public Defender in 
1998 to help people clear their record of past convictions 
and arrests. 

In 2004, the unit conducted 43 community outreach 
presentations and prepared, filed, and helped over 1 ,500 
people clear their criminal records. The office's satellite 
Clean Slate Office in the Bayview district of San Fran- 
cisco, which opened in November 2003, assisted over 300 
people on a walk-in basis. For more information, call 
(415)553-9337. 

Innocence Project 

The Innocence Project investigates claims of factual 
innocence made by state prison inmates originally con- 
victed in San Francisco courts, and provides assistance to 
inmates seeks DNA testing of evidence. The Innocence 
Project attorney investigates new evidence, witnesses, and 
records that may lead to the client's exoneration, and 
conducts prisoner outreach. In 2004, the Innocence 
Project investigated 37 cases, including two cases with 
Golden Gate University Law School. 

Children of Incarcerated Parents Program 

Studies have shown that as many as one-third of 
children who are detained for juvenile delinquency matters 
have a parent in jail or prison. The absence of a parent for 
any reason is devastating to the child. Many children are 
often abandoned or forced into foster care as a result of 
their parent's incarceration. To help children survive and 
cope with their parent's incarceration, the office, with the 
generous support of the Zellerbach Family Foundation and 
San Francisco PIP (Partnership for Incarcerated Parents), 
has developed a program which assists incarcerated 
parents and their children obtain family services, counsel- 
ing and family jail visits. 



Public Defender 2004 Case Statistics 



otal number of Cases Handled: 23,140 

Felonj Unit: 

rotal Cases: 5,973 
Arraignments: 4,399 
Dismissed: 940 
Diverted: 4 l )3 

i ases Resolved In Guilty Pleas Before 
Preliminary Hearing: 1.449 
rotal Guilt) Pleas: 1,683 
Number of Cases 1 [eld to Answer: 5 1 3 
Jury [rials: 5 1 

\\ erage Cases per Attorney (Annual): 166 
Average Caseload Per Attorney (At any given time): 55 

Type of Cases: 

1 lomicides: 20 

Sex Offenses: 56 

Violent or Serious Felonies: 685 

Burglary, Theft, Receiving Stolen Property: 516 

Drug Offenses: 2.444 

Miscellaneous: 596 

Probation Violations: 1,574 

Misdemeanor Unit: 

Total Cases: 12.119 
Arraignments: 5,71 1 
Cases Dismissed: 2,303 
Cases Diverted: 863 

Cases Resolved by Guilty Plea Before Trial: 1,290 
Trials: 137 

\\ erage Cases Per Attorney (Annual): 757 
Average Caseload Per Attorney (At any given time): 125 

Juvenile Unit: 

Total Cases: 1.472 
Court Appearances: 3,387 
Court Trials: 54 
Contested Disposition: 57 
Fitness Hearings: 5 

\\ erage Cases Per Attorney (Annual): 210 
Average Caseload Per Attorney (At any given time): 50 
Total Educational Placement: 108 
Total California Youth Authority (CYA) Commitments: 1 

Mental Health Unit: 

Total Cases: 3,629 

Drug Court: 

Total Cases: 1,079 



Civil: 

Certification Reviews: 2,786 

Conservatorship: 207 

Renewal of Conservatorship: 498 

Writs: 95 

Total Civil Cases: 3,586 

Criminal: 

Maximum Term Extension: 10 

Writ for Conditional Release: 3 

Restoration of Sanity: 6 

Conditional Release/Outpatient Parole: 18 

1370 Top Out: 3 

Total Criminal Cases: 43 

Behavioral Health Court: 

Total Cases: 150 

Total Number of Graduates: 65 

Proposition 36: 

Total Cases: 619 

Substance Abuse Unit: 

Clients Evaluated: 308 

Clients Placed into Treatment Programs: 1 1 7 

Street-to-Work: 

Total Case: 104 

Clean Slate: 

Cases: 1,102 
Motions: 578 

Innocence Project: 

Total Letters: 67 
Referrals: 51 
Closed Investigations: 23 
Active Cases: 29 
DNA Tested: 2 

Investigation Unit: 

Attorney Investigation Requests: 2,016 
Subpoenas Served: 1,245 
Interviews: 2,822 

Research Unit: 

Appeals: 6 

Petitions for Writs: 21 

Motions to Suppress Evidence: 20 

Motions to Set Aside Information: 60 

Legal Memoranda: 47 

Miscellaneous Motions: 26 

Recruitment/Volunteer Intern Program: 

Interns: 244 



10 



Public Defender Staff 



Public Defender: JeffAdachi 

Chief Attorney: Teresa Caffese 

Executive Assistant to the Public Defender: Angela Auyong 

Felony Managing Attorneys: Steve Gayle & Maria Zamora 

Misdemeanor Managing Attorney: Jean Amabile 

Juvenile Managing Attorney: Patricia Lee 

Mental Health Managing Attorney: Robert Bunker 

Research Managing Attorney: Chris Gauger 

Director of Training: Martin Sabelli 

Director of Investigations and Support Services: Kathy Logan 

Director of Interns and Recruitment: Kathy Asada 

Felonv Unit: 



Bicka Barlow 

Gabriel Bassan 

Frank Brass 

Linda Colfax 

Henry Doering 

Roberto Evangelista 

Peter Fitzpatrick 

Michael Fox 

Azita Ghafourpour 

Greg Goldman 

Carla Gomez 

Danielle Harris 

Kleigh Hathaway 

Elizabeth Hilton 

Chris Hipps 

Misdemeanor Unit: 

Christina Alvarez 

Jonah Chew 

Kisha Cordero 

Monica Cummins 

James Higa 

Alisa Kim 

Juvenile Unit: 

Roger Chan 

Greg Fcldman 

Emily Goldman 
! Mental Health Unit: 
i Kara Chien 

Research Unit: 

Dorothy Bischoff 

Drug Court: 

Armando Miranda 



Christopher Hite 
Daro Inouye 
Katherine Isa 
Mark Iverson 
Mark Jacobs 
Jennifer Johnson 
Susan Kaplan 
Lisa Katz 
Sujung Kim 
Susan Leff 
Jennifer Levin 
Alex Lilien 
Mary Mallen 
Kwixuan Maloof 
Randall Martin 

Helena Kim 
Tal Klement 
Adam Lipson 
Eric Luce 
Maria Lopez 
Seth Meisels 

Debra Hoffman 
Jan Lecklikner 
Will Maas 



Norene Lew 



Articia Moore 
Steve Olmo 
Craig Peters 
Stephen Rosen 
Simin Shamji 
Mel Santos 
Kauser Siddiqui 
Sangeeta Sinha 
Niki Solis 
Phoenix Streets 
Rafael Trujillo 
Tyler Vu 
Phong Wang 
Doug Welch 
Rebecca Young 

Brian Pearlman 
Aleem Raja 
Diana Rosenstein 
Tiffany Ti sen 
Stephanie Wargo 
Jacque Wilson 

Rebecca Marcus 
Stephen Zollman 



Proposition 36: 

Jami Tillotson 

Substance Abuse: 

Shannon Bennett 

Clean Slate Program: 

DeMarris Evans 

Innocence Project: 

Paul Myslin 

Investigation Unit: 

Carolyn Hanna 
Jennifer Jennings 
Pat Leary 
Ricardo Lopez 
Karen Masi 
Jose Mendoza 

Social Worker Units: 

Marynella Woods 
Annette Quiett 



Edelmira Alfaro 



Louise Winterstein 



Christina Pena 
Nigel Phillips 
Lawrence Porchia 
Diane Rae 
Jill Schroeder 
Jill Shaw 

Jaime Michel 
Stefanie Shapiro 



Administrative Support Unit: 

Eunice Kaneko Jason Yoder 

Clerical Unit: 

Thelma Flores-Arroyo 
Ana Guevara 
Virginia Libiran 
Judy Liu 

Word Processing Unit: 

Rosario Carbajal 
Paralegal Unit: 
Julia Deutsch 
Lori Flowers 
Nicole Holland 
Andrew Koltuniak 
Research Fellows: 
Carol Chodroff 



Angela Mathews 
Lynn Mechanic 
Mary Muao 
Luz Rodriguez 

Emily Ng 

Joan Kruckewitt 
Brendan Loftus 
Tiffany McLean 
Kenneth Olivencia 

Vilaska Nguyen 



Information/Technology Unit: 

Thomas Brown Rene Manzo 

Volunteer Program: 

Louise Swig 

Public Relations Assistance: 



Marie Mallare 



Miriam Goodman 



Sandra Smutz 
Gary Sourifman 
Robert Stemme 
Everson Thompson 
Debora Warren 



John Tennison 
Cynthia Watkins 
Wynona 
Winterstein 

Sandra Reyna 

Anthony Sosa 
Michelle Tong-Choyce 



CONTACT INFORMATION: 

Office & Directory (415) 553-1671 Investigation Fax (415) 553-9646 

Main Desk (415)553-9810 Juvenile Division (415)753-7600 

Front Desk (415)553-8128 Juvenile Fax (415)566-3030 



Clean Slate 
Intern Program 



(415) 553-9337 
(415) 553-9630 



The Public Defender would like to thank the following individuals, law firms and organizations 

for their sponsorship of the EQUAL JUSTICE CAMPAIGN 

Farella, Braun & Martel Cris Arguedas Family of Robert Nicco 

Heller, Ehrman LLP Jeff Bleisch Patricia Lee & Gil Graham 

O'Melveny & Myers LLP James Collins Bar Association of San Francisco 

Pillsbury Winthrop LLP Douglas Young Viacom & Clear Channel 

Jones Day Sedgwick, Deter LLP Scott Seo & Navigant Consulting 



11 



On Being a Public Defender 



These questions were asked by Kyle Jiminez, </ 16-year old high 
\. //.'<>/ student who </ wrote paper about what it is like to be </ 
/>///>//< defendi 



What inspires a person to 
become a public defender? 

\\ hile everyone has their o\\ n reasons lor choosing their 
profession, one common thread is that public defenders 
usual l\ come from backgrounds where they strongly believe 
in indh idual rights, and that justice is something that has to 
be fought for. Main have experienced injustice themselves, 
and can empathize \\ ith clients who come from difficult 
backgrounds, with little educational, employment and social 
opportunities. Public defenders also have to like people, 
since they have a lot of contact with people — clients, 
witnesses, jurors, etc. 

What is most rewarding thing 
about being a public defender? 

1 lelping clients obtain justice. Unlike the TV version, it is 

verj d it'll cult for 

individual clients to 

obtain justice. Dockets 

are overcrowded by too 

many cases, and judges 

go from case to case in a 

matter of minutes. 

There is a great deal of 

bias against our clients, 

both inside and 

outside the 

courtroom. Good 

public defenders 

forge a successful 

legal strategy and use all of their wit, skill, life experience 

and tact to obtain a good result for the client. And when 

they do, it is extremely rewarding. 

What are some of the hardships 
being a public defender? 

The caseloads. Public defenders carry heavy caseloads, 
sometimes up to 1 25 misdemeanor cases and 60 felony 
cases at any given time. This is a huge responsibility. Each 
case represents a human being who is facing incarceration, 
and. in some cases, for the rest of their lives. It is the job of 
the public defender to represent the interests of the 
individual, to make sure that the accused's rights are not 
trampled on and that all possible legal defenses are asserted. 




Deputy Public Defender Kisha 
Cordero advises a client in court 



How does it feel to defend someone 
you believe or know is guilty? 

It is important that public defenders don't judge their 
clients. A lawyer has a sworn duty to represent all clients to 
the best of his or her ability, regardless of whether he or she 
personally believes a client might be guilty or not. Juries 
decide guilt, not lawyers. Instead, we have a system that 
requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt before a person is 
convicted of a crime. 

How would someone go about 
becoming a public defender? 

Go to law school, pass the bar and get experience working 
in a criminal law office. 

How does our justice system work? 

We have an adversary system — two opposing sides, the 
prosecution and the defense go to court and fight it out. 
The idea is that through this process the truth is revealed. 
Sometimes there is a compromise reached, and other times, 
not. When we cannot work out a case, the case goes to trial. 
Other times there is a guilty plea or the case is dismissed, or 
the person chooses to enter a diversion program. However, 
a public defender must be willing to go to trial if the client 
wants a trial and the prosecution isn't willing to settle the 
case for the outcome the client desires. 

Are there any special skills 

a public defender should have? 

Know how to read, to write and not be afraid to speak up to 
right a wrong. 

On average, how much experience 
do public defenders have? 

We have attorneys of all levels of experience, although the 
majority of lawyers have between 10-25 years of experi- 
ence. The newer attorneys handle misdemeanor cases, 
while experienced attorneys handle the felony and serious 
cases. 

What is the typical day of the Public Defender like? 

Most public defenders work long hours, between 55-65 
hours per week. Because lawyers are often in court all day, 
they must interview clients and prepare their cases in the 
evening hours. And when a lawyer is in trial, he or she 
might work 1 6-hour days, working with their investigator, 
locating and subpoenaing witnesses and preparing for the 
next day in court. A trial might last anywhere from one 
week to even a month or longer. This means that it's never a 
9-to-5 job. 



12 



1 he creation of the office of Public Defender has af- 
forded an opportunity for humanitarian service on the 
part of this City and County to many persons accused of 
crime. Much good has been accomplished by this office, 
and it shall continue to be our aim to render all possible 
service to those who otherwise could not procure private 
counsel." 



- Frank J. Egan, SF Public Defender (1921-1932) 



On November 9, 2004, the Public Defender presented "The Life and Times of Frank Egan — San Francisco's First 
Public Defender," for the San Francisco Lawyers Club's Legendary Trials series. 



^ _ ,'4A 

an fran cis 
Public Defenders 
3005 Annual Report 



ce for All: 
iversity and Equ 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
AUG 2 1 Z006 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



! mission of the San Francisco Public Defender's 
Office is to protect and defend the rights of our indigent 
clients through effective, vigorous, compassionate, and 

creative legal advocacy/ 7 



Cover image: "Clara Foltz, Founder of the Public Defender' 
Sculpture by William T. Farnan £> 2006 

This report was not printed at public expense. 



Message from the Public Defender 



BREAKING THE GLASS CEILING: 

Moving Towards Greater Diversity & Equality 



I 



t is hard to believe that just over a century ago, women 
wore barred from becoming lawyers, from serving on juries 
and even from attending law school in California and most 
stales. Ethnic minorities were also excluded from entering 
the legal profession and were legally ineligible to testify in 
criminal cases. 

Fast forward to 2006. Today, California's legal profession, 
while still not reflective of the state's gender and ethnic pop- 
ulation, has made substantial progress towards greater diver- 
sity. The Public Defender's office, which has had a strong 
tradition of hiring women and people of color from the early 
1970s, is today one of the most diverse mid-size law firms in 
the country. Currently, the office attorney staff and manage- 
ment team is made up of 55% women and 45% minorities. 

In December 2005, the office was recognized by the Bar 
Association of San Francisco for achieving its diversity goals 
and piercing the "glass ceiling." The Public Defender's 
office was the only law firm to receive awards for both gen- 
der and ethnic diversity. I am extremely proud of the exam- 
ple our office has set in acting upon our core belief that the 
24,000 clients we represent each year are entitled to a 
diverse staff that reflects the public we serve. 

2005 has been a year of great accomplishment for the attor- 
neys and staff of our office. We have tried more cases than 
ever and received positive outcomes for the vast majority of 
our clients. We have set a high bar for the quality of legal 
representation we provide, through our annual employee 
evaluations and adherence to the office's manual of policy 
and procedures. 

Our legal advocacy efforts have gone beyond the Hall of 
Justice. This year, our research unit filed a writ in the 
California Supreme Court challenging the California 
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's policy deny- 
ing juvenile parolees the right to an attorney at parole revo- 
cation hearings. This is one of dozens of important issues 
that the office has brought to the appellate courts. 



We have continued to make a difference in the community 
through our Clean Slate criminal record expungement pro- 
gram and Bay view MAGIC, a youth and family juvenile jus- 
tice collaboration which has now grown to include 42 com- 
munity-based organizations. In 2005, we continued to lead 
the charge to expand services for the mentally ill through 
Behavioral Health Court and to implement the Mental Health 
Act (Proposition 63). Our work in the Drug Courts and 
Proposition 36 court offers treatment as an alternative to 
incarceration for persons charged with drug offenses, and our 
drug addiction unit helps clients promptly enter into residen- 
tial treatment when warranted. 

Our work continues to challenge us each and every day. 
Public defenders still face heavy workloads and the difficult 
task of ensuring that each client's case receives the attention 
it deserves. And, as we move forward, we recognize that the 
struggle for gender and ethnic equality is far from over and 
we must continue to fight to achieve social justice. 

Sincerely, 




Jeff Adachi 
Public Defender 




Public Defender Jeff Adachi and Chief Attorney Teresa Caffese 
receive awards from-the Bar Association of San Francisco for 
minority hiring and for women in management. 



Remembering Our History 



CLARA SHORTRIDGE FOLTZ FREDERICK D. SMITH 
(1849-1934) (1917-2001) 



a 




Clara Foltz was the first female 
attorney in California and the 
founder of the public defender. 



'ur cover features 
Clara Foltz, the first 
woman lawyer in the state | 
of California, and the 
founder of the Public 
Defender system. Said to 
be a direct descendent of 
Daniel Boone, Foltz, a 
single mother of five chil- 
dren, decided to challenge | 
the law excluding women 
from the legal profession. 
Foltz began lobbying for 
the passage of the Woman | 
Lawyer's bill in the 
California legislature. 
Following intense battles 
over passage of the bill in 
the State Assembly and 
Senate, the Governor 
signed the bill into law in 
March of 1878, and Clara Foltz passed the bar exam and was 
admitted to the bar in September of that same year. Even 
after being sworn in as a lawyer, a judge in San Francisco 
refused to recognize Foltz's admittance. 

In 1879, after already passing the bar, Foltz decided to chal- 
lenge the exclusion of women from law schools by applying 
to U.C.'s Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco. She 
was refused admittance. Foltz argued the case herself before 
the same judge who earlier had refused to recognized her bar 
license. She won, but Hastings appealed, and the case ulti- 
mately reached the California Supreme Court. The high 
court also ruled in Foltz's favor, paving the way for women 
to enter law schools not only in California but also through- 
out the country. 

Foltz became a skilled trial lawyer, trying and winning cases 
before all male juries. 

However, her greatest achievement was to create the office 
of the Public Defender. After years of writing articles and 
giving speeches across the country on the need for court- 
appointed lawyers for indigent persons accused of crimes, 
she introduced the Foltz Defender Bill in 1892. Some 29 
years later, in 1921, the California Legislature passed the 
Foltz Bill, and the San Francisco Public Defender's Office 
was created the same year. 




Fred Smith, the office 's first African- 
American attorney, rose to the position of 
Chief Attorney in 1974. 



Ml rederick D. 
Smith was the 
office's first 
African-American 
attorney. 

Fred Smith was 
born in Kansas in 
1917. He attend- 
ed the University 
of Iowa but left 
after three years 
to fly planes in 
Chicago. During 
World War II, 
Smith joined the 
Tuskegee Airmen, a training program for an elite group of 
African-American pilots who paved the way for the admis- 
sion of blacks into the military. After the war, Smith moved 
to San Francisco, where he worked as a longshoreman. 

In 1951, Smith entered Hastings College of the Law and, 
upon graduation, entered private practice. Smith was active 
in the Bayview Hunters Point Community Foundation and 
also was very involved in the National Lawyer's Guild, at 
one point serving as its president. 

In 1961, Fred Smith joined the San Francisco Public 
Defender's office as its first African-American attorney. He 
earned a reputation as a top trial lawyer, trying 1 1 consecu- 
tive homicide cases, and earning acquittals in nine of those 
cases. He eventually rose to the position of Chief Attorney 
under Public Defender Robert Nicco, and served in this 
capacity from 1974 to 1979. He retired from the office's 
juvenile division in 1986. 

In December 2005, Fred Smith was posthumously honored 
by the Public Defender for his contribution to the office and 
for the improvement of justice for the poor. A photo of Fred 
Smith, donated by his family, now hangs in the hallway 
adjoining the Chief Attorney's office. 







Benchmarks for Justice 


V 


nected to it. As a result, the Public Defender now has a 
modern computer network capable of handling the high 
workload of our staff. The Information Technology staff has 
designed and implemented a shared database/intranet, result- 
ing in greater efficiency and cost savings. The office has 
also completed the first phase of developing a new Case 
Tracking System, a comprehensive database of all cases han- 
dled by the office. 

Enhancing Mental Health Systems 

Of the 24,000 indigent clients the Public Defender represents 


■■' I m, "" n ' ( " m '"" 


each year in misdemeanor and felony courts, at least 10% 



Attorney lllaska Nguyen with client. 



Expanding and Coordinating Services for Parolees 
Returning to the Community 

In November 2005, San Francisco Supervisor Ross 
Mirkarimi convened the San Francisco Re-entry Council, a 
collaboration of government agencies including state parole 
offices, community-based organizations, treatment providers 
and educational and employment agencies to examine how 
re-entry services for persons released from state prison could 
be better coordinated. The Council is conducting a citywide 
survey of services available to parolees, and is developing a 
multi-agency plan to prepare for and enhance ex-prisoners' 
successful re-entry into the community. The Public 
Defender's office will continue to play a leading role in this 
effort. 

Holistic Representation of Juvenile Clients 

In 2004, California Rule of Court 1479 expanded the duties 
of a juvenile attorney to include advocating "that the child 
receive care, treatment, and guidance consistent with his or 
her best interest." This rule now requires attorneys repre- 
senting minors to ensure that these clients receive services 
consistent with this mandate. 

The Public Defender's office has adopted a comprehensive, 
holistic approach to serving the 1 ,400 youth it represents 
each year. The office's staff of three social workers will be 
expanded to five in 2006, with a special program established 
for girls. The girls' social worker pilot project was initially 
funded by the SF Foundation and the VanLobenSels 
Foundation, and is now a permanent program of the office. 
The Public Defender will also continue to provide education- 
al advocacy and placement services for youth. 

Improving Access to Technology 

In 2005, the Public Defender replaced decade-old computer 
equipment, and updated its software systems. The office's 
new servers provide greater stability for the 150 PCs con- 



suffer from severe mental disorders. In November 2004, 
Proposition 63, known as the Mental Heath Services Act 
(MHSA), was passed by California voters, providing funding 
for the expansion of mental health services. 

A 41 -member task force was created by the mayor's office 
and charged with the responsibility of identifying and priori- 
tizing mental health needs in preparation for the development 
of San Francisco's three-year plan for the allocation of state 
funds to be disbursed through the Act. Several public 
defenders testified at the hearings on the importance of end- 
ing the inappropriate incarceration of the mentally ill, and on 
the recent establishment of the Behavioral Health Court. 

Improving Cost Efficiency by Increasing Attorney- 
Support Staff Ratio 

Upon entering office in 2003, Public Defender Jeff Adachi 
requested that the Controller conduct a comprehensive study 
of the office's operations. The Controller issued a report, 
finding that the attorneys needed more investigators, parale- 
gals and clerks to support the office's high caseload. The 
office has added staff each year to increase efficiency as well 
as the quality of legal representation. 




Intern LateefGray and Attorney Steve Gayle. 



Leading Juvenile Justice 



A he office's juvenile unit serves as a model for defender 
offices throughout California and the nation. By providing 
holistic wrap-around services to its clients, the unit works to 
meet the legal, educational, social and behavioral health 
needs of youth to ensure their long-term success at home and 
in the community. 

The unit reduced the number of youth detained at the Youth 
Guidance Center by preparing individualized release plans 
that emphasize gender and culturally appropriate services. In 
almost 90% of school expulsion hearings handled by our 
legal and social work staff, the unit succeeded in keeping the 
youth in school and on track. The office's educational advo- 
cacy unit provided 1 94 educational placements to youth. 

In 2005, the unit's nine attorneys tried 42 cases, and repre- 
sented 1,386 youth in court proceedings. The office opposes 
all commitments to the California Youth Authority (CYA), 
and, in 2005, only four juveniles from San Francisco were 
committed to the CYA. 

Juvenile Justice Summit 



O, 



'n May 17, 2005, the Public Defender's Office held its 
second Juvenile Justice Summit at the Civic Center Main 
Library. Entitled "Re-forming Juvenile Justice: Prevention, 
Accountability and Empowerment," the one-day summit 
brought together 200 youth, parents and youth advocates to 
discuss the difficult issues confronting young people in the 
juvenile justice system. 

Panelists discussed developing a stronger collaborative rela- 
tionship between agencies within the juvenile justice system, 
helping families navigate the juvenile justice system, and 
forging more effective partnerships between community- 
based agencies. For information about the upcoming Public 
Defender's Juvenile Justice Summit, which will be held May 
9, 2006, please call (415) 753-8174. 




Edgar: From Gang Member to Youth Counselor 

Edgar was arrested for a serious gang-related assault and com- 
mitted to the San Francisco County Camp for boys. He is a 
monolingual youth from El Salvador who was deeply involved in 
Sureno gang activity. While at the camp, he began working with 
a social worker from the Public Defender 's Office. Upon his 
release, he enrolled in a full-lime school program and graduated 
from high school. He also became involved in counseling with 
Vision Youthz, a community-based youth organization. The 
Public Defender s social worker was able to find an individual- 
ized paid internship for Edgar to counsel other youth involved in 
gang lifestyles. Despite ongoing danger and harassment from 
gang members, Edgar was able to change his life. He now 
works full time, is not involved with gangs, and has successfully 
completed his juvenile probation. 



Bayview MAGIC 



B 




Panelists at the 2005 Juvenile Justice Summit. 

To view the 2005 Public Defender's Juvenile Justice 
Summit, please visit our website at www.sfgov.org/pd. 



ayview MAGIC (Mobilization for Adolescent Growth in 
our Communities) is a governmental and community-based 
collaboration formed to implement a comprehensive strategy 
to reduce crime and violence in targeted communities. 
Initiated by the Public Defender's office in 2004, MAGIC 
has now grown to 
encompass over 42J 
youth and family 
agencies. 

MAGIC meets 
every other week 
and works with 
groups that pro- 
vide services to 
youth and families 
in Bayview 
Hunters Point. 
MAGIC'S activities 
in 2005 included: a Back-to-School celebration where 
MAGIC distributed over 2,000 backpacks filled with school 
supplies; a mentor fair; training for community-based agen- 
cies; and a book and technology festival. In addition, 
MAGIC opened a new computer technology center in part- 
nership with the Bayview YMCA and AT&T. 

MAGIC also works with youth and parents who become 
involved in the juvenile justice system. MAGIC's juvenile 
justice committee meets regularly with youth who are held at 
the Youth Guidance Center and provides them with advice, 
support and access to community-based services. 

For more information about MAGIC or to volunteer, please 
call 415-558-2475 or visit http://www.bayviewmagic.com 



Bayview MAGIC distributed 2,000 back- 
packs and school supplies to city youth. 



Felony Unit 



Building a World-Class Public Defender's Office 



Misdemeanor Unit 



I his year, the felony unit provided representation to over 
7.100 clients charged with felony offenses, crimes which 
carry the possibility of a state prison sentence. The unit is 
comprised of 48 lawyers who staff fourteen courtrooms. 
The felony unit provides "vertical representation" in all 
cases, meaning that a single lawyer is assigned to represent 
the client from arrest to disposition. Each felony trial lawyer 
is responsible for investigating, researching and litigating all 
issues in his or her caseload. Attorneys meet clients at their 
first appearance in court and work to develop a relationship 
of trust and confidence. The office has teamed attorneys 
with a paralegal and investigator to provide comprehensive 
advocacy for clients. 

Felony attorneys perform a myriad of duties and tasks in rep- 
resenting their clients. On one day, this may mean accompa- 
nying an investigator to interview witnesses and photograph 
a crime scene, and, on yet another day, it may involve cross- 
examining a police officer about an unlawful search and 
seizure or giving a closing argument in a homicide trial. The 
attorneys work closely with two managers who provide sup- 
port and coaching to help attorneys constantly improve their 
courtroom advocacy. The office sets rigorous standards to 
ensure that clients receive the best possible legal representa- 
tion. 

In 2005, the attorneys in the felony unit completed 64 jury 
trials, an increase of more than 25% from 2004. The unit 
also handled 33 murder cases. This year, the felony unit 
established a DNA unit to assist lawyers who are handling 
cases involving DNA evidence and "cold-hit" cases, 
unsolved cases that are re-opened, often decades later, 
because of DNA testing. 




J. he misdemeanor unit consists of 15 attorneys who staff 
five courtrooms and handle over 10,000 cases per year. Each 
courtroom has three attorneys who represent clients vertical- 
ly, i.e. the clients are assigned to the same attorney from 
arraignment to the case's conclusion. In 2005, 4,728 cases 
were arraigned and assigned to public defenders. 2,940 of 
these cases were dismissed. A total of over 1,100 cases were 
diverted out of the court system into the pre-trial diversion 
program. 

In 2005, the unit had 128 jury trials. Seventy cases (55%) 
resulted in outright acquittals, partial acquittals or hung 
juries. 



Training Unit 




Thomas Mesereau addresses the 2005 
Public Defender s Trial College 



Attorney Alex Lilien with intern Craig Bessenger. 



A he office provides its lawyers and staff with training nec- 
essary to insure the 
highest level of profes- 
sional services through 
a training program that 
keeps staff appraised of 
changes in the law as 
well as building the 
skill base of the 
lawyers. 

In 2005, the office held 
36 in-house workshops 
on subjects including 
jury selection, opening 
statements, closing arguments, presentation of evidence in 
gang cases and immigration laws. Featured guest speakers 
included lawyers John Keker, Angela Alioto, Elisabeth 
Semel and Bob Waggener. The office also held its second 
annual Trial College in December 2005. This year, the col- 
lege featured attorney Thomas Mesereau who successfully 
represented Michael Jackson against charges of molestation. 
Participants learned cross-examination skills and engaged in 
interactive learning sessions. Over 100 attorneys from the 
private bar and the office attended. 

The office's training director, Martin Sabelli, also holds regu- 
lar case conferences with office attorneys and conducts ori- 
entation programs for new lawyers. In 2005, through schol- 
arships generously provided by private firms, the training 
unit sent two felony lawyers to intensive two-week trial 
trainings at the National Criminal Defense College in 
Macon, Georgia. 



Building a World-Class Public Defender's Office 



Research Unit 



A he Research Unit's mission is to write motions, writs and 
appeals and to provide advice, research training and assis- 
tance to office attorneys. The five-person unit consists of a 
manager, three lawyers and one research assistant. The unit 
does legal research and writing, writes memoranda and 
motions, and handles pre-trial writs and appeals. The unit 
also researches and writes materials for in-office trainings. 

In 2005, the unit instituted a monthly case-law update on 
legal issues and twice-a-month legal brainstorming sessions. 
The unit has adopted an aggressive approach, requiring that 
attorneys press all viable issues. In 2005, the unit produced 
52 writ petitions, 155 motions, 63 memoranda, and nine 
appeals. The unit filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in 
the California Supreme Court challenging the California 
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's policy of 
refusing to appoint lawyers for juveniles facing parole viola- 
tions, while appointing lawyers for adults facing the same 
proceedings. 



Investigation Unit 




Attorney Maria Zamora with Investigator Nigel Phillips and Legal 
Processing Clerk Tala Winterstein. 



E, 



mch case assigned to an attorney must be fully investigat- 
ed. Witnesses may change their stories, or tell police differ- 
ent stories, or police may fail to interview other onlookers. 
Investigators locate and interview witnesses, take photos, 
measure and map crime scenes, and subpoena witnesses to 
appear in court. Fourteen investigators and one paralegal 
work with attorneys to perform these critical functions. Each 
investigator is assigned to seven lawyers. 

In 2005, the unit handled over 2,255 investigation requests. 
While many cases are still pending, of the cases completed 
in 2005, investigators conducted 3,382 interviews, served 



2,000 subpoenas, performed more than 250 database search- 
es and made over 800 oral or written reports to attorneys. 

The Paralegal Unit 




Paralegals Noah Barish, Julia Deutsch, and Michelle Tong-Choyce. 

A he Public Defender's Office established the Paralegal 
Unit in 2003 to provide support to attorneys handling heavy 
caseloads. Attorneys delegate many tasks such as follow-up 
interviews with clients and witnesses and the ordering of 
documents and records. Paralegals support the attorneys in a 
variety of ways including writing motions, reviewing and 
summarizing records, and helping maintain contact with wit- 
nesses and family members. They also assist attorneys during 
trial by making trial binders, preparing jury instructions and 
creating exhibits and electronic presentations for the jury. 
Paralegals translate and interpret for Spanish, Cantonese, and 
Mandarin-speaking clients. 

During 2005, seven paralegals were assigned to support 
attorneys in the felony unit and one paralegal each was 
assigned to Drug Court, Domestic Violence Court, 
Investigation and the Juvenile unit. 

Clerical, Word Processing and Information Technology 
Units 



While I was working at the inpatient psychiatric unit in the 
county jail, I called your office as many as three times in one 
hour. I appreciate the professionalism and assistance of your 
phone staff. I was always greeted by a friendly voice and a 
willingness to help. It meant a lot, 

— Sincerely, D. W. 



T 



he Clerical Unit is responsible for creating, maintaining 
and archiving over 24,000 client files each year. The unit 
files attorney motions (requests for court action), delivers 
missives to and from other criminal justice agencies, and 



Building a World-Class Public Defender's Office 



staffs 1 8 courtrooms. The Word Processing Unit provides 
accurate transcriptions of witness statements. In 2005, the 
three-person unit transcribed 398 witness statements in 
English, Spanish, and Cantonese for a total of 4,915 pages. 
They also use their translation and interpretation skills to 
assist attorneys and clients. Front desk staff answered 
approximately 104,000 phone calls and answered over 
35,000 questions. The Information Technology Unit provides 
technical support for the office's computer and information 
systems. 

Volunteer Attorney Program 

JL he volunteer attorney program offers a full-time work 
experience for attorneys from private firms and new lawyers 
who wish to obtain experience handling a misdemeanor case- 
load. In addition, the program benefits law firms who want 
their associates and partners to gain experience trying cases 
before a jury. Chosen through a competitive process, "loan- 
ers" receive intensive training and join the misdemeanor unit 
for four-month stints. 

In 2005, nine attorneys participated in the program. 
Participating firms included: Pillsbury Winthrop; Shook, 
Hardy & Bacon; and Cooley Godward. The volunteer attor- 
neys completed a total of 35 jury trials. 




Volunteer attorney Jake Sorensen 



"I want to thank you for the four months I spent working in the 
misdemeanor unit. I learned a great deal, enjoyed working 
with your lawyers, and tried three cases to verdict. My court- 
room skills improved vastly and I am a better trial lawyer now 
because of my experience at your office. " 

— Jake Sorensen, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 




Volunteer interns David Munoz, Jennifer Proctor and Justin Sterling 
Volunteer Intern Program 



"My externship at the San Francisco Public Defender s office 
was one of the best experiences of my law school career. I 
learned far more in one semester than in any of the law school 
classes I had taken up until that point. The externship was a 
great mix of courtroom observation and substantive writing 
assignments — I would recommend it to anyone interested 
in a career in criminal law! " 



Michelle Skinner, Stanford Law School student intern, 2005 



A he San Francisco Public Defender's Volunteer Internship 
Program (VIP) provides internship opportunities for law stu- 
dents, paralegals, investigators, college students and any age 
volunteers who are interested in receiving hands-on experi- 
ence meeting with clients, writing motions, conducting 
investigations and assisting attorneys in trial. Students apply 
to participate in the fall, spring or summer internship pro- 
grams. The office has established programs with criminal 
law clinics at Hastings College of the Law, Golden Gate 
University School of Law, and Stanford University School of 
Law. 

In 2005, 205 volunteers representing over 10 undergraduate 
colleges and 28 law schools from across the United States 
and other countries provided over 72,000 work hours to sup- 
port the office. 

Many interns, who have gained their first experience in a law 
firm at the Public Defender's Office, have found fulfilling 
jobs after learning valuable skills in the Public Defender's 
fast-paced, stimulating environment. To apply, or for more 
information, please call (415) 553-9630. 



Treating, Not Punishing, Mental Illness and Drug Addiction 



The Mental Health Unit 



The Behavioral Health Court 



One Man's Struggle with Mental Illness 

B. D. was charged with making annoying phone calls and 
threats. He had a long history of mental illness and suffered 
from schizophrenia. He was found incompetent to stand trial, 
and the criminal proceedings were suspended. After the doc- 
tors at the slate hospital determined that B. D. would not 
regain his competency, the Mental Heath Unit worked with 
B. D. to successfully transition him into the mental health sys- 
tem. Instead of further incarceration, B. D. was released from 
the state hospital and placed into a conservatorship, a civil 
proceeding which is used when a person is unable to care for 
himself. B. D. began receiving psychiatric treatment and care, 
and his criminal charges were later dismissed. 

X oo often, clients with mental health issues are incarcerat- 
ed after failing to receive adequate mental health services in 
the community. The rate of serious mental illness among the 
jail population is three to four times higher than in the gener- 
al population. To assist these individuals, the Mental Health 
Unit advocates for the rights of mentally ill clients, and 
advocates against inappropriate incarceration. 

In 2005, the unit, which consists of two attorneys and two 
investigators, represented over 3,500 clients in competency, 
civil commitment and conservatorship proceedings. 
Additionally, the unit represented over 100 clients found 
incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity. 
The goal in many of these cases is to help the client transi- 
tion from the criminal justice system to the mental health 
system. 

The unit provided testimony and submitted position papers to 
the Proposition 63 (Mental Health Services Act) task force, 
which was formed to facilitate new state funding for counties 
in need of mental health services. The unit also wrote a 
grant proposal for a mental health case manager who will 
assist attorneys in achieving positive outcomes for mentally 
ill clients. 

Prop 36 Court 



An 2000, Californians passed 
Proposition 36, which requires convicted 
drug users with drug or non-violent 
offenses to receive drug treatment in lieu 
of being sent to jail. A special court 
known as Prop 36 Court was established 
to hear these cases and provide access to 
treatment. In 2005, the court handled 610 
cases. So far, 78 clients have successfully 
completed their drug program require- 
ments and had their cases dismissed. 



X he Behavioral Health Court, instituted in 2003, is a col- 
laborative mental health court which provides treatment 
assistance to individuals charged with crimes stemming from 
their mental illnesses. The court works with service 
providers and mental health advocates to provide support for 
these clients which may include housing, treatment and 
employment assistance. Clients who are accepted to the court 
agree to participate in a comprehensive treatment plan, and, 
upon completion, their charges are reduced or dismissed. 

In 2005, the court accepted 157 clients, and handled nearly 
300 cases. Of the 37 clients who successfully graduated 
from the court, all are now free of the criminal justice system 
and instead receive treatment through the community mental 
health system. 

San Francisco's Behavioral Health Court is considered one 
of the most innovative and successful courts of its type in the 
country. The court is part of a comprehensive study by the 
MacArthur Foundation, which is conducting one of the first 
national studies on the efficacy of mental health courts. The 
court is in the process of developing a separate track 
designed to help women. 

Drug Assessment and Placement 

X he office's drug assessment specialist finds placements 
for clients whom the court has sentenced to residential drug 
treatment programs. This year, the drug addiction specialist 
evaluated 297 clients. Despite a reduction in the number of 
residential treatment beds, 125 clients were placed in 2005 
compared to 117 in 2004. 

Drug Court 



D, 



'rug Court is an intensive rehabilitation and supervision 
program to divert non-violent felony offenders with serious 
substance abuse problems into treatment rather than sending 
them to prison or jail. Members of Drug Court seek to iden- 
tify addicts and find appro- 
priate treatment services in 
the community which 
address their addictions and 
reintegrate them into society 
through vocation and educa- 
tional programs. Drug court 
is a proven solution to the 

Judge Cynthia Lee with 
Assistant District Attorney 
-**£ Michele Dawson and Deputy 
Public Defender Maria Lopez. 




Helping Ex-Offenders Turn Their Lives Around 



devastating cycle of drug addiction, homelessness, and crimi- 
nal activity that plague San Francisco. The re-arrest rate of 
those who complete Drug Court is 1 5%, compared to 56% of 
those who do not graduate from Drug Court. The idea of 
Drug Court is to deal with the source of criminal conduct: 
drug use. The Court acknowledges that addicts often engage 
in criminal activity including drug sales, theft and prostitu- 
tion in order to support their habits. 

In 2005, over 120 clients successfully completed the Drug 
Court program. Each graduate stayed drug-free for a year, 
building a solid foundation for recovery. More than 50% of 
the participants were homeless when they entered the pro- 
gram; by the time of graduation, less than 10% of the gradu- 
ates were homeless. Ninety percent of participants were 
unemployed when they entered the program; by graduation, 
nearly half of all graduates had a stable source of income. 
Ten percent of graduates were enrolled in school while par- 
ticipating in Drug Court, and more than 10% reunified with 
their children while in the program. 

Clean Slate Program 




Clean Slate team members accept the Mayor s Fiscal Advisory 
Committee s team award: (L-R) Louise Winterstein, Mayor Gavin 
Newsom, DeMarris Evans, and Kathy Bull. 

Y. he Clean Slate Program assists individuals to clear their 
records of past convictions and arrests so that they are able 
to obtain employment, housing, student loans, state issued 
licenses and qualify for other opportunities. The Clean Slate 
Program was instituted by the Public Defender in 1998. 

In 2005, the unit participated in over 50 community outreach 
activities, including presentations, community events, job 
fairs, legal fairs and hearings. The program's total number 
of clients has doubled from 1,102 in 2004 to 3,029 in 2005. 
In 2005, the unit filed over 1,000 motions. It also obtained 
over 700 expungements of criminal convictions, numerous 
orders sealing arrest records and recommendations for par- 
dons from the Governor. 



This year, the unit opened new satellite locations in 
Visitacion Valley and in the Western Addition/Fillmore com- 
munity. The unit now has a total of three community satel- 
lite locations, including the Bayview location, which was 
opened in 2003. 

In December 2005, the Clean Slate Program was awarded 
the Mayor's Fiscal Advisory Committee's Public Managerial 
Excellence Team Award. This competitive award is given 
annually to a team of city employees that has demonstrated 
collective leadership and innovative approaches to good gov- 
ernment. This is the second time employees of the Public 
Defender's office have been chosen for this award. 

The Innocence Project 

A he Innocence Project investigates claims of factual inno- 
cence made by state prison inmates who were originally con- 
victed in San Francisco courts. Under the authority of Penal 
Code Section 1405, the project provides assistance and rep- 
resentation to inmates seeking DNA testing of biological evi- 
dence. The Project tries to locate new evidence, witnesses, 
and records that may lead to the exoneration of a wrongly 
convicted individual. It advises prisoners of their right to 
seek DNA testing if this testing was unavailable at the time 
of their trial. 

In 2005, the San Francisco Public Defender's Innocence 
Project received 51 new requests for assistance. Two cases 
were inherited from Golden Gate Law School. In 2005, 11 
cases were closed, and 17 remain active. Motions for DNA 
testing were filed in two cases, with testing to be conducted 
in early 2006. 

Children of Incarcerated Parents 

A he Children of Incarcerated Parents program assists attor- 
neys and in-custody clients with issues relating to relation- 
ships with their children. A caseworker meets with the incar- 
cerated parent to determine if the other parent or caretaker 
needs assistance to care for the children. The caseworker 
gives contacts for necessary services for the children and 
provides logistical support to the families. 

The caseworker also attends court proceedings to advocate 
for the parent or child, and provides training to educate attor- 
neys, judges, law enforcement personnel and others about the 
effects of incarceration on children and families. This is the 
first program of its kind and is funded by a grant through the 
Zellerbach Family Foundation. Since the caseworker was 
hired in October 2005, she has handled 28 cases. 



Public Defender 2005 Case Statistics 



A otal Cases Handled by the Public Defender's Office: 
24,000 

Felony Unit: 

Total cases: 7,132 

Arraignments: 4,694 

Cases dismissed: 1,506 

Cases resolved by plea bargain before 

preliminary hearing: 1,715 
Number of cases held to answer: 841 
Total guilty pleas: 2,846 
Jury trials: 64 

Ave. cases per attorney (Annual): 165 
Ave. caseload per attorney (At any given time): 55 

Type of Cases: 

Homicides: 33 

Sex offenses: 50 

Violent or serious felonies: 743 

Burglary, Theft, Receiving Stolen Property: 840 

Drug offenses: 2,363 

Miscellaneous: 677 

Probation violations: 2,426 

Misdemeanor Unit: 

Total cases: 10,341 

Arraignments: 4,728 

Cases dismissed: 2,940 

Cases resolved by guilty plea before trial: 1,781 

Trials: 128 

Ave. cases per attorney (Annual): 646 

Ave. caseload per attorney (At any given time): 89 

Juvenile Unit: 

Total cases: 1,386 

Court appearances: 2,943 

Court trials: 42 

Contested dispositions: 61 

Ave. cases per attorney (Annual): 184 

Ave. caseload per attorney (At any given time): 50 

Total educational placements: 194 

Total Youth Authority (CYA) Commitments: 4 

Research Unit: 

Appeals: 9 

Petitions for writs: 52 

Motions to suppress/Motions to set aside Information: 85 

Legal memoranda: 63 

Miscellaneous motions: 70 



Mental Health Unit: 

Total cases: 3,690 

Civil: 

Certification review hearings: 2,793 
Conservatorship: 210 
Renewal of conservatorship: 489 
Writs: 83 

Criminal: 

Maximum term extensions: 14 
Writ of conditional release: 2 
Restoration of sanity: 3 
Conditional release/out-patient parole: 2 
Revocation of out-patient: 4 
In-patient progress reports: 44 
Out-patient status reports/renewals: 34 
1370 Top-Out: 9 
Miscellaneous: 3 

Behavioral Health Court: 

Total cases: 281 

Total number of graduates: 37 

Drug Court: 

Total cases: 997 

Proposition 36: 

Total cases: 610 

Substance Abuse Unit: 

Clients evaluated: 297 

Clients placed into treatment programs: 125 

Clean Slate: 

Cases: 3,029 
Motions: 1,037 

Innocence Project 

Total letters: 51 

Referrals: 39 

Closed investigations: 11 

Active cases: 17 

DNA motions filed/heard: 2 

Investigation Unit 

Attorney investigation requests: 2,255 
Subpoenas served: 2,000 
Interviews: 3,382 



Recruitment/Volunteer Intern Program: 

Interns: 205 



10 



Public Defender Staff 



Public Defender: JelTAdachi 

Chief Attorney: Teresa CaO'csc 

Executive Assistant to the Public Defender: Angela Auyong 

Felony Managing Attorneys: Will Maas and Rebecca Young 

Misdemeanor Managing Attorney: Niki Solis 

Juvenile Managing Attorney: Patricia Lee 

Mental Health Managing Attorney: Robert Bunker 

Research Managing Attorney: Chris Gauger 

Director of Training: Martin Sabelli 

Director of Investigations and Support Services: Kathy Bull 

Director of Interns and Recruitment: Kathy Asada 

Felony Unit: 



Norene Lew 



Bicka Barlow 
Gabriel Bassan 
Frank Brass 
Linda Colfax 
Henry Doering 
Roberto Evangel ista 
Peter Fitzpatrick 
Sandy Feinland 
Peter Fitzpatrick 
Michael Fox 
Steve Gayle 
Azita Ghafourpour 
Greg Goldman 
Carla Gomez 
Danielle Harris 
Kleigh Hathaway 

Misdemeanor Unit: 

Carmen Aguirre 
Jonah Chew 
Kisha Cordero 
Monica Cummins 
James Higa 

Juvenile Unit: 

Jean Amabile 
Roger Chan 
Greg Feldman 

Mental Health Unit: 

Kara Chien 



Elizabeth Hilton 
Chris Hipps 
Christopher Hite 
Daro Inouye 
Katherine Isa 
Mark Iverson 
Mark Jacobs 
Jennifer Johnson 
Susan Kaplan 
Lisa Katz 
Sujung Kim 
Jennifer Levin 
Alex Lilien 
Adam Lipson 
Eric Luce 
Mary Mallen 

Tal Klement 
Justyn Lezin 
Maria Lopez 
Seth Meisels 
Vilaska Nguyen 

Emily Goldman 
Debra Hoffman 
Jan Lecklikner 



Kwixuan Maloof 
Randall Martin 
Articia Moore 
Steve Olmo 
Craig Peters 
Aleem Raja 
Stephen Rosen 
Mel Santos 
Sangeeta Sinha 
Phoenix Streets 
Rafael Trujillo 
Tyler Vu 
Phong Wang 
Doug Welch 
Jacque Wilson 
Maria Zamora 

Brian Pearlman 
Diana Rosenstein 
Tiffany Tisen 
Stephanie Wargo 
Charmaine Yu 

Rebecca Marcus 
Stephen Zollman 



Research Unit: 

Dorothy Bischoff 
Drug Court: 

Simin Shamji 

Proposition 36: 

Jami Tillotson 
Substance Abuse: 

Shannon Bennett 

Clean Slate Program: 

DeMarris Evans 

Innocence Project: 

Paul Myslin 

Children of Incarcerated Parents: 

Emani Davis 
Investigation Unit: 

Carolyn Hanna 



Armando Miranda 



Edelmira Alfaro Sujung Kim 



Louise Winterstein 



Jennifer Jennings 
Pat Leary 
Ricardo Lopez 
Karen Masi 
Jose Mendoza 

Social Worker Unit 

Jaime Michel 



Christina Pena 
Nigel Phillips 
Lawrence Porchia 
Diane Rae 
Jill Schroeder 
Jill Shaw 



Stefanie Shapiro 

Administrative Support Unit: 

Eunice Kaneko Larry Roberts 

Clerical Unit: 

Thelma Flores-Arroyo Angela Mathews 
Ana Guevara Lynn Mechanic 

Virginia Libiran Mary Muao 

Judy Liu 

Word Processing Unit: 

Rosario Carbajal Emily Ng 

Paralegal Unit: 

Noah Barish 
Julia Deutsch 
Heather Ferguson 
Lori Flowers 

Research Fellow: 

Gunnar Rosenquist 

Information/Technology Unit: 

Thomas Brown Rene Manzo 



Nicole Holland 
Andrew Koltuniak 
Joan Kruckewitt 
Brendan Loftus 



Sandra Smutz 
Gary Sourifman 
Robert Stemme 
Everson Thompson 
Debora Warren 



Marynella Woods 



Luz Rodriguez 
John Tennison 
Wynona Winterstein 



Sandra Reyna 

Kenneth Olivencia 
Anthony Sosa 
Michelle Tong-Choyce 
Liliana Vera 



CONTACT INFORMATION 

Office & Directory (415)553-1671 
Main Desk (415)553-9810 

Front Desk (415)553-8128 



Investigation Fax 
Juvenile Division 
Juvenile Fax 



(415)553-9646 
(415)753-7600 
(415)566-3030 



Clean Slate 
Intern Program 



(415)553-9337 
(415)553-9630 



The Public Defender would like to thank the following individuals, law firms and organizations 
for their sponsorship of the EQUAL JUSTICE CAMPAIGN: 
Scott Seo & Navigant Consulting Jones Day Sedgwick, Detert, LLP 

Family of Robert Nicco Cristina Arguedas Cooley Godward LLP 

HellerEhrman LLP Jeff Bleich Bar Association of San Francisco 

O'Melveny & Myers LLP James Collins . Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP 

Pillsbury Winthrop LLP Douglas Young Farella Braun + Mattel LLP 




Public Defender Teamwork Frees an Innocent Man 



An May 2003, M. M. was caring for his girlfriend's children when 
20-month old C. fell out of his chair and began choking. M. M. 
wrapped him in a blanket and ran to the hospital. In the emergency 
room, doctors performed CPR and other emergency procedures, 
but the child died. Several doctors observed internal bleeding and 
broken blood vessels in C.'s eyes, and concluded that the child had 
been shaken to death, a condition sometimes referred to as "Shaken 
Baby Syndrome" (SBS). 

At the hospital, police questioned M. M. for hours. M. M., a hard- 
working immigrant with a sixth grade education, was fully cooper- 
ative. Officers interrogated him three times, and, each time, he told 
the police how the accident occurred. When M. M. was arrested 
and charged with murder, he was shocked. M. M. had never been 
in any trouble before, and his girlfriend completely supported his 
claim of innocence. 

Charged with Murder 

Because M. M. had lost his job, he was unable to hire an attorney. 
The Public Defender's office agreed to represent M. M. and 
defender Craig Peters was assigned to the case. Along with investi- 
gator Jill Schroeder, paralegals Nicole Holland and Liliana Vera, 
and three volunteer legal interns, Thomas Master, Preston Morgan, 
and Tricia Povah, the defense team began its year-long investiga- 
tion of the case. 



When M. M. was arrested 
and charged with murder, 
he was shocked. M. M. had 
never been in any trouble 
before, and his girlfriend 
completely supported his 
claim of innocence. 



The defense team first 
researched all of the litera- 
ture behind "Shaken Baby 
Syndrome," and learned 
that the diagnosis is quite 
controversial. While broken 
blood vessels in the eyes 
are common in shaken 
babies, no studies have been performed to show whether babies 
who choke or fall might experience retinal bleeding. The defense 
also found that many well-respected doctors and researchers dis- 
agreed that C. had died of SBS. The defense team filled ten 
binders with medical literature, including many studies by medical 
experts who questioned SBS. 

The defense contacted SBS experts, including a Harvard-trained 
ophthalmologist, a pediatric neuroradiologist from Stanford and a 
forensic pathologist. The experts all agreed that the series of 
events — the fall, the choking, and the vigorous CPR — could have 
caused the toddler's injuries. They also discovered two overlooked 
factors: C. had taken steroids for asthma, which made him more 
susceptible to injuries from a fall; and medical records proved that 
C. had choked on food prior to arriving at the hospital (just as 
M. M. had told the police). 

The First Trial 

The first trial, in May 2004, became a "battle of the experts." The 
prosecutor presented an ophthalmologist, a pediatrician, and a radi- 



ologist. They all claimed that C.'s injuries could only have been 
caused by SBS. 

On the defense side, the emergency room physician testified on 
M. M.'s behalf. The ER doctor contended that he, as the first per- 
son to see C, never suspected child abuse or foul play. He 
described how the ER staff "pounded" on C.'s tiny body for almost 
ten minutes in an attempt to resuscitate him. He stated that many 
of the injuries the doctors later found on C. could have, in fact, 
been exacerbated by such vigorous CPR. The defense also pre- 
sented other experts whose findings fully supported the ER doc- 
tor's opinion. 

The jury deliberated for over two weeks, and deadlocked: six to 
six. However, M. M. remained in custody while the prosecutor 
decided if the case should be retried. The jury foreman, an engi- 
neer, wrote a letter to the prosecutor. "I do not believe that the 
facts, evidence and expert testimony provided during the trial 
showed proof of murder, beyond reasonable doubt. I do not believe 
justice will be served by retrying this case, unless new and com- 
pelling evidence and testimony is provided." The foreperson 
believed that his jury did not reach a "not guilty" verdict because 
of racism, and because some 
of the jurors had miscon- 
ceived notions of the pre- 
sumption of guilt. Despite 
the jury foreman's plea, the 
prosecutor decided to retry 
the case. 



The Second Trial 



The jury foreman wrote: 
"I do not believe justice 
will be served by retrying 
this case. . ." Despite the 
jury foreman's plea, the 
prosecutor decided to 
retry the case. 



A year later, in May 2005, the second trial began. M. M.'s public 
defender did not change his strategy, but brought in an engineer 
who analyzed C.'s fall and the amount offeree necessary to cause 
his injuries. This expert was able to explain how C.'s fall resulted 
in the injuries later mistaken by doctors to be SBS. 

Also, M. M. testified in both trials. M. M.'s public defender decid- 
ed to have him testify because M. M. was credible and truthful. 
Despite persistent cross-examination by the prosecutor, M. M. 
never wavered in his account of the incident. 

The Verdict 

After five weeks of testimony and evidence, the jury deliberated 
for two days and returned with "not guilty" verdicts on all counts. 

After the verdict was announced, a juror asked to speak to the 
defendant. The juror told M. M. that she was sorry that he had 
gone through this experience, that it could have happened to any- 
one, and that he should try to get something positive out of this 
negative experience. M. M. wept. 

After three years in jail, M. M. was a free man. He returned to his 
family. While this was a victory for the defense, it was an even 
greater victory for M. M., who, throughout his years in jail, contin- 
ually maintained his innocence, his dignity, and his hope for justice. 



12 



//r-p 

1 he remedy for many of the evils of the present criminal 
court practice lies in the election or appointment of a public 

defender. For every public prosecutor there should be a 
public defender chosen in the same way and paid out of the 

same fund as the public prosecutor. Police and sheriffs 
should be equally at his command and the public treasury 

should be equally open to meet the legitimate expenses. 

Let the criminal courts be reorganized upon a basis of exact, 
equal and free justice; let our country be broad enough and 

generous enough to make the law a shield as well as a 
sword, and there will come to the State, as a natural conse- 
quence, all those blessings which flow from constitutional 
obligations conscientiously kept and government duties 

sacredly performed/' 



— Clara Foltz, in her address to the Congress of 

Jurisprudence and Legal Reform, delivered at the 1893 

World Columbian Exhibition. 



* i 



^ 





an Francisco 
Public Defender's 
•06 Annual Report 



Message from the Public Defender 



Making Justice Happen 






■ A he Public Defender's office was established in 1921 and 
\ is the largest criminal defense law firm in our city. Yet, it 
wasn't until the last few years that we have had the neces- 
sary support staff to achieve our core mission of providing 
'the highest quality legal representation to over 25,000 people 
each year. Now, supported by paralegals, investigators, clerks 
■and social workers, the highly skilled attorneys of the office 
ihave come a long way since 1963 when the Supreme Court 
j first ruled that an indigent defendant has a right to a lawyer. 

The Public Defender's office of today is much more than its 
counterpart of yesteryear. In the past, most defender offices 
barely subsisted, staffed by attorneys carrying overwhelming 
caseloads with little oversight. Today, our office employs 
caseload standards, coaching, and performance evaluations to 
ensure we provide the very best representation. We respond 
promptly to problems, and pay close attention to details. 
From the time that a phone call is answered by our operators, 
j the staff works together as a team to provide each case with 
the attention it deserves. 

Our juvenile division, with its staff of social workers, pro- 
vides wrap-around support to our youthful clients to help 
them avoid entering the adult criminal justice system. Our 
community youth program, Bayview MAGIC (Mobilization 
[ for Adolescent Growth in our Communities), is a model of 
community involvement and support which takes a preventa- 
tive approach to juvenile justice by reaching young people 
before they find themselves in trouble. 

2006 has been a year of many exciting achievements. We 
tried more cases than ever before, and the attorneys and staff 
have done an incredible job of handling even the most chal- 
lenging and difficult cases. The office has created a model 
t re-entry unit, with social workers who assist former prisoners 
in housing, mental health, education and employment services. 

i The department will launch Gideon, its new computer case 
management system, in 2007. The office obtained support 
from Mayor Gavin Newsom to expand the use of technology 
in the courtroom. 

This year, we brought our award-winning Clean Slate pro- 
gram to a fourth neighborhood — the Mission District — 
and helped some 2,400 rehabilitated persons citywide clear 



their criminal records so they can become productive citizens 
and enter the workforce. Through the support of Supervisor 
Ross Mirkarimi, we also introduced the MAGIC program to 
the Western Addition. 

The highlight of the year occurred in November when our 
office received the American Bar Association's 2006 Dorsey 
Award. Named after the late Charles H. Dorsey, the long- 
time director of Maryland's Legal Aid Bureau, Inc. and a 
champion of the poor and underprivileged, the award is 
given to a public defense office that has demonstrated excep- 
tional work and an outstanding commitment to justice. We 
humbly accept this award on behalf of our past, present and 
future clients. 

In this spirit, we will continue to fight for justice for all — 
both in the courtroom and in the community. Thank you. 

Sincerely, 




Jeff Adachi 
Public Defender 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
JUN.2 2007 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 




Jeff Adachi and Chief Attorney Teresa Caffese with American Bar 
Association Dorsey Award. 



In the words of our clients 



1 he dailj work thai our deputy public defenders, investiga- 
tors, and staff do rarel) makes headlines. This year, we have 
chosen to share excerpts from the many letters and notes our 
office received from clients and family members who 
received our sen ices. 

"I was pn\ ileged to witness your attorneys in action. 
Contrary to popular opinion, which holds public defenders in 
low esteem. I was throughout impressed by your attorneys' 
zeal on behalf of their clients and the aggressive defense they 
DTO\ ided to their clients. In my opinion, your attorneys per- 
sonifj the highest standards of legal representation." 



JD, January 2007 



OS 



'I am writing this letter in regards to a very good public 
defender on your staff. Not only is she very professional in 
the work she performs daily, but she has been a mentor as 
well. This attorney is not just there for the paycheck, or let- 
ting the best for her client slip away to end a case. This 
lawyer fought hard for me and my best interests. I feel and 
know in my heart that my defender went to many lengths 
along with her investigator. I am truly grateful." 



RWD, November 2006 



os 



"I write to express my appreciation for the professional serv- 
ices provided by your office. I observed the dedication, 
integrity and professionalism of the public defenders in your 
office during my case. I was thoroughly faithful in the justice 
system making the right decision and they did. Thank you." 

— WJ, April 2006 




Client with Defender Mel Santos. 



OS 

"This letter is to express to you my very deep and sincere 
appreciation to my deputy public defender, who represented 
me thoroughly, competently and successfully. He combined a 
high moral attitude with a true sense and love for justice, and 
was professional and zealous in his defense. He has unques- 
tionably solidified my trust in the public defender system." 

— JNW, October 2006 

OS 

"I am indebted to you and your wonderful staff. Your attor- 
neys are a force to be reckoned with. Thank you for all of 
your efforts on my behalf." 



TS, October 2006 



os 



"I am an inmate in the County Jail. I am writing you this let- 
ter thanking your department for their help and support that 
they gave me during my most needed time. My Attorney is a 
very caring person. She told me she would do everything 
that she could to get me the help I needed with my substance 
abuse problem — and she did. When I complete my drug 
treatment program, I will be able to be a better father for my 
two daughters." 

— MW , December 2006 
os 
"I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for the 
Clean Slate program, and for helping me reduce my felony 
conviction to a misdemeanor. This was an old case and I did 
not think it would come up when my wife applied for child 
care licensing. The Clean Slate program did fantastic work, 
and my family is greatly appreciative for this." 

— MS, December 2006 

OS 

"I would like to tell you how much I appreciate the assis- 
tance I received from one of your employees. I was trying to 
get my grandchildren out of the foster care system, and had 
called the public defender's office to get an expungement let- 
ter and was under time constraints to get this letter. From the 
very first phone call, your staff member helped me. He was 
always so helpful and showed insurmountable patience. It is 
not everyday that you get someone who shows he really 
cares about the public." 

— CW, July 2006 






OS 

"I commend your attorneys for their exemplary work on 
behalf of my client, a severely disabled veteran. Thanks to 
the work of the defenders, my client will once again receive 
the full amount of his monthly veteran's disability benefits, 
which will greatly improve the qualify of his life." 



— L.N. Divinsky, Senior Staff Attorney 
Swords to Plowshares 






mil 
2m. 



Benchmarks for Justice 



Training the Workforce to Enhance Quality of 
^ Representation 

All attorneys and staff participate in regular training sessions 
designed to improve our legal representation. In 2006, the 
office provided 64 in-house seminars for attorneys and staff. 

When they are hired, all employees undergo mandatory train- 
ing. Employees receive extensive training through our 
'office's Manual of Policy and Procedures, mission statement 
and core values. For example, the Manual requires that our 
'attorneys meet with clients within 48 hours of arraignment if 
they are in jail and within 5 days of their arraignment if they 
are not in jail. This policy ensures that all clients are seen in 
a timely manner, and that all clients are interviewed by their 
attorneys prior to their next court appearance. 

In addition, the office conducts annual performance evalua- 
tions for each employee. The evaluation process provides 
staff with feedback from their managers on their perform- 
ance and monitors the employee's progress towards reaching 
their goals. In 2006, the office completed a total of 155 eval- 
uations. In addition, written 90-day and 180-day evaluations 
were performed for all new employees. 

improving Public Safety by Implementing 
Re-Entry Programs for Returning Prisoners 

(n the past year, the Public Defender's office has helped lead 
i new initiative known as the Safe Communities Re-entry 
Council. The Council was formed in 2005 by Supervisor 
R.oss Mirkarimi to enhance public safety by providing coor- 
dinated, efficient and effective services to prisoners re-enter- 
ng society from county jail or prison. The Council has 
grown to include over 35 community-based re-entry organi- 
sations and government agencies. 

n 2006, the Public Defender's office also formed a re-entry 
init. The unit is comprised of a trained team of social work- 
ers who provide clients re-entering their communities assis- 
ance in the areas of housing, employment, education, health, 
nental health, substance abuse, family counseling and other 
leeded support services. 

The Public Defender also worked closely with the Board of 
Supervisors and the SF Safe Communities Council to expand 
he No Violence Alliance (NOVA), a program of the Sheriff, 
o provide community-based re-entry services to former 
)arolees released to the community. This innovative pro- 
gram, known as NOVA II, provides housing, education and 
smployment services to persons recently released from 



prison. Outcomes and progress of participants are carefully 
tracked, and community-based service providers collaborate 
with each other to provide intensive wrap-around services. 
This initiative is funded by the city and a $750,000 grant 
awarded by the California Department of Corrections and 
Rehabilitation. 

The Safe Communities Re-entry Council's first Re-entry 
Summit, focusing on issues and solutions for persons return- 
ing to the community after a period of incarceration, 
occurred in September of 2006. To view the summit on 
streaming video, please visit www.sfgov.org/pd. 

Expanding Behavioral Health Court 

The Behavioral Health Court is a collaborative mental health 
court which provides treatment assistance to individuals 
charged with crimes stemming from their mental illness. The 
court works with service providers and mental health advo- 
cates to provide support for these clients, and tries to keep 
them in therapy — and out of jail. The Public Defender's 
office has played a key role in both the design and imple- 
mentation of the Behavioral Health Court. This year, the 
Court will receive over $ 1 million dollars to expand services 
to add more clients. 

Implementing a Case Tracking/Management 
System 

In mid-2007, the Public Defender's office will begin using 
its new computer management system known as Gideon. The 
system will allow defenders and managers to track their 
cases. Motions, forms, and other repetitive paper-intensive 
tasks such as requests for expert witnesses will be automat- 
ed. The system will allow the Public Defender to compile 
statistics on attorney workloads, overall office performance 
measures, and types of cases assigned to the office. 




Defender Diana Rosens tein with Deputy District Attorney Marc 
Guillory and Judge Maria Miller. 



Making Justice Happen 



Felony I nil 



Misdemeanor Unit 



1 he felon) unit is comprised of 48 lawyers who staff five 
preliminary hearing courtrooms, ten trial courtrooms and 
three specialty courts: Drug Court, Prop 36 and Behavioral 
I lealth. I elonj lawyers have an average caseload of 50 
cases, and together, our office handles over 9,200 felony 
eases per year. 

1 he felony unit's goal is to provide compassionate and high- 
Is competent vertical representation of all clients, meaning 
that the same lawyer is assigned to represent the client from 
an est to disposition of charges. To achieve that goal, felony 
trial attorneys meet clients at their first appearance in court, 
and immediately begin developing a relationship of trust and 
confidence. Paralegals, investigators and interns team with 
attorneys to prepare cases for preliminary hearings and trials. 
Felony trial attorneys obtain discovery from the prosecutor, 
develop investigation plans, assign paralegal tasks, perform 
legal research and make all court appearances in the case. 

In 2006, the unit conducted 66 jury trials, compared to 64 tri- 
als last year. In 2006, the office conducted 12 homicide tri- 
als. The office had 50 homicide cases, an increase from 
2005, when the office had 38 homicide cases. The felony 
unit won acquittals in 55% of its jury trials. 

The office recently created a felony probations violation unit. 
This unit, comprised of five experienced felony attorneys, 
has decreased delays in handling these important cases. The 
unit collaborates with the Research unit which updates them 
on new sentencing laws. 




A he goal of the misdemeanor unit is to have well-prepared 
attorneys who litigate and advocate effectively on behalf of 
indigent clients charged with misdemeanor offenses. The unit 
consists of 1 5 attorneys who staff five courtrooms and han- 
dle over 1 0,000 cases per year. Each courtroom has three 
attorneys who represent clients from arraignment to the con- 
clusion of the case. The unit conducts an average of 10 trials 
per month and handles hundreds of cases which are diverted 
out of the criminal justice system into the pretrial diversion 
program. In 2006, lawyers conducted 130 jury trials, 57% of 
which resulted in acquittals, partial acquittals or hung juries. 
The unit wrote 923 motions, and achieved 370 non-diversion 
dismissals after arraignment. 

Training Unit 



Client and Defender Sangeeta Sinha. 



Guest lecturer Chris Ritter speaking at a training session. 

A he office training program provides our lawyers and staff 
with the skills necessary to insure our clients receive the 
highest level of professional representation. 

In 2006, the office held 64 in-house workshops and lectures 
on subjects as varied as jury selection, evidentiary objections 
to mental health defenses, eyewitness identification issues, 
and combating negative impressions of the defense in the 
media. Featured guest speakers included journalist Jamie 
Floyd of Court TV, attorneys John Philipsbom, Tim Hallahan 
and Dr. Sunwolf, psychiatrist Dr. Jeff Gould, toxicologist Dr. 
Nikolas Lemos, reporter Jeff Chorney, Judge Harold E. Kahn 
and communications expert Joshua Karton. 

The Director of Training also holds regular case conferences 
with attorneys and conducts orientation programs for new 
misdemeanor lawyers and lawyers transitioning from the 
misdemeanor unit to the felony unit. 

- 










Leading Juvenile Justice 


A Year of Continued Growth in Advocacy, 
Services, and Leadership 


Margie was a 1 7 year-old African-American girl facing 
two theft related incidents in juvenile court. In the 
process of her assessment, the Public Defender advocate 
discovered that Margie was committing these crimes for 
a 43-year old man that she had been sexually abused by 
since she was 14 years old. Unfortunately, Margie devel- 
oped an unhealthy attachment with this older man, and 
she began stealing in order to support his crack and 
heroin addictions. 


Attorneys and Social Workers Defend and Advocate for the 
Best Interests of the Youth 

i A he juvenile unit's nine attorneys work closely with the 
'office's social workers to ensure that the 1,400 youth the 
office represents each year "receive care, treatment, and 
'guidance consistent with his or her best interest" as required 



by California Trial Court Rule 1479. The juvenile unit 
includes an education/placement specialist, five social work- 
ers, two investigators, one paralegal and two support staff. 

To successfully defend youth charged with delinquent offens- 
es, the work of the juvenile unit's attorneys begins in the 
icourtroom and extends into the community. The attorneys 
,and social workers implement individualized plans that 
include case monitoring, educational advocacy, and services. 
In 2006, we added two additional social workers to our staff, 
bringing the total to five social workers. As a result of the 
unit's intensive case management, the number of youth 
[removed from their homes has been reduced by 25% since 
2005. 

This year, the juvenile trial attorneys experienced daunting 
Challenges because of an increase in robbery and assault 
bases. Also, there were more fitness hearings to determine if 
youths should be tried as adults. This year, the juvenile unit 
jwas successful in preventing the transfer of four youth into 
pe adult criminal justice system. The attorneys also tried 55 
bourt trials. 



The juvenile probation officer recommended thai Margie 
be prosecuted. However, the Public Defender s office 
developed a comprehensive treatment plan, which includ- 
ed a vocational training through the San Francisco Job 
Corps, and a special education program to address her 
needs. 

The Public Defender s attorney/social worker team was 
able to convince the judge to dismiss the case. He agreed 
that Margie was a victim of exploitation. 

Margie is now successfully participating in the Job Corps 
and is obtaining a high school diploma while pursuing a 
career in culinary arts. 






Leadership in the Community and in the Law 



CYA Moratorium 




An 2004, a moratorium against commitments to the 
California Youth Authority (CYA), [now the Department of 
Juvenile Justice (DJJ)], was issued by the San Francisco 
Board of Supervisors. This action was taken in response to 
numerous independent expert reports of severe neglect and 
unconscionable abuses suffered by youth housed at DJJ. 
In November 2006, the Public Defender convened the Third 
Annual CYA/DJJ Roundtable. Widely attended by public 
defenders from throughout California, attendees debated 
legal strategies to prevent DJJ commitments and to promote 
the use of safe and rehabilitative alternatives to DJJ. 

This office continues to vigorously oppose sending youths to 
DJJ. In 2006 only one youth was committed to DJJ, but one 
month later, the youth's commitment was modified to an out- 
of-home treatment facility. 



attorneys and staff of the Juvenile Unit of the San Francisco 
*ublic Defender s Office. 



Leading Juvenile Justice 



|u\ enile fustice Summit 



O 



'n \ki\ 9, 2006, the Public Defender's Third Annual 
Juvenile Justice Summit - Multi-Cultural Youth 
I mpowermeni in Juvenile Justice, was held at the Civic 
(.enter Main I ihrarv Over 200 youth, families, youth agen- 
cies and community partners participated in the summit. 
I xpert panelists discussed difficult questions on the cultural 
harriers that south and families face in the juvenile justice 
system. This includes the plight of immigrant and undocu- 
mented youth, the disproportionate confinement of minori- 
ties, and the disparate treatment of minority youth. 

A highlight of the summit was a performance by five teen- 
agers from the Youth Treatment and Education Court who 
related their experiences with the juvenile justice system. 

(Please visit www.sfgov.org/pd to view the summit on 
streaming video.) 



Multi- Cultural Youth Empowerment 
in Juvenile Justice 




MAGIC in the Bayview and the Western Addition 

A he Public Defender's office continues to build strong 
alliances with community agencies and advocates serving 
youth. Today, over 35 agencies and partners participate in 
MAGIC (Mobilization for Adolescent Growth in our 
Communities), a community-led/based collaboration of 
youth and family agencies dedicated to creating positive out- 
comes for youth. General MAGIC community meetings are 
held twice a month. 

In August, MAGIC's annual children and youth backpack 
giveaway in San Francisco's Bayview Hunter's Point was a 
huge success as more than 2000 backpacks were given to 
kids to jump start the school year. The MAGIC Juvenile 
Justice Program has helped teenagers detained at the Youth 
Guidance Center, linking them with training programs, jobs 






WELCOME TO BAVVI6H, MAGir.c 
yfUo-SCHOOL CELEBS, 




and counseling services. MAGIC's Computer Technology 
Center at the Bayview YMCA provides daily computer class- 
es to youth. MAGIC's literary programs, including its annual 
Book & Technology fair, stress the importance of learning 
and education. 

MAGIC has been so successful in the Bayview that the 
Public Defender's office, at the request of Supervisor Ross 
Mirkarimi, has brought the MAGIC program to the Western 
Addition neighborhood. The Western Addition initiative is 
known as Mo Magic. 

For information about Bayview MAGIC, please call (415) 
558-2428. The Bayview MAGIC meets every other Tuesday, 
at Martin Luther King Community Room at 3:00pm. 

For information about the Western Addition MAGIC (known 
as Mo Magic), please call (415) 558-2487. Mo Magic meet- 
ings are held every other Wednesday, at the African Ameri- 
can Cultural Center, at 11:00 a.m. The public is invited. 




Getting ready for school, kids at MAGIC's backpack giveaway. 



A World-Class Public Defender's Office 



Research Unit 



I X he Research unit, comprised of four attorneys and a post- 
bar fellow, assists the felony attorneys with all legal issues 
land supports other units with complicated issues and writs. 
|ln 2006, the unit wrote 1 1 7 motions, 60 memorandums of 
'law and 79 writs and appeals. The unit also provides training 
Dn immigration, legal writing and new laws. Several impor- 
tant issues were successfully litigated in the misdemeanor 
unit supporting indigent persons rights: to appear through 
Counsel, to effectively use a peremptory challenge, and 
(speedy trials. 



Word Processing 



Investigation 




°ublic Defender investigator Ricardo Lopez. 

X he 1 8-person Investigation unit provides the foundation 
v for the attorney's vigorous defense of our clients. Each 

nvestigator is assigned to work with a team of lawyers, 
pnvestigators locate, interview and subpoena witnesses, can- 
vas areas to document activity there, photograph, measure 
prime scenes, conduct record searches and even transport 
I defense witnesses to court. 14 investigators are teamed with 
Ifelony and misdemeanor lawyers in our main office and, in 
l>006, responded to 2,400 requests for investigation. Four 

nvestigators work in the Mental Health and Juvenile units. 

Clerical 



X he Public Defender Clerical unit supports attorneys and 
;lients through processing the paperwork that comprise some 
10,000 client files. The unit also maintains records of court 
proceedings, updates the computer system, answers phone 
;alls from clients, their relatives and the general public, dis- 
ributes mail, and processes attorney requests for information 
ind court action. 



Xn 2006, the Word Processing unit produced transcripts of 
taped recordings in three different languages — English, 
Spanish, and Cantonese — for a total of 3,578 pages. The unit 
also assists with special courts and programs, such as Drug 
Court, Proposition 36, and Clean Slate. In addition, the unit 
also provides translation services and assists clients at the 
front desk. 



Information Technology 



a 



'ur Information Technology Department (IT unit) guaran- 
tees reliable and consistent access to computer technology to 
over 200 end-users. Consisting of three people, the IT unit 
designs, implements and maintains the computer network, 
and the desktop computers in our main office and two satel- 
lite offices. The unit also assists attorneys in court presenta- 
tions and technological emergencies, and also answers 
diverse technical questions. 

Paralegal Unit 

X he Paralegal unit of the Public Defender's Office pro- 
vides valuable support to the attorneys by writing motions, 
reviewing and summarizing records, and maintaining contact 
with witnesses and family members. They also assist attor- 
neys during trial by making trial binders, preparing jury 
instructions and creating exhibits and presentations. 
Paralegals also translate and interpret for Spanish and 
Cantonese-speaking clients, and dress clients for trial using 
clothing from the office's donated clothing room. 

During 2006, paralegals were added to the felony and Clean 
Slate Unit, bringing the total number of paralegals to 12. 




Defender Roberto Evangelista and paralegal Brendan Loftus. 



Treating, Not Punishing, Mental Illness & Drug Addiction 



he Mental l [ealth Unit 



1 he number of mentally ill clients being incarcerated is 
grow ing, but adequate resources for treatment are lacking. 
\o .ismsi these clients, the Menial Health unit advocates for 
improved access to treatment and to services in the commu- 
nis and m the jails and prisons. 

In 200(i. the unit, which consists of two attorneys and two 
investigators, represented over 3,500 clients in competency, 
ch il commitment and conservatorship proceedings. The unit 
also represented 100 clients in criminal court. The unit's 
goals are to provide transition for these clients from the 
criminal justice system into the mental health system, and to 
reduce recidivism. 

This unit also helps conserved clients obtain social security 
benefits. 



Behavioral Health Court 



"1 am writing to express my support for the Behavioral Health 
Court of San Francisco. Those who are involved with this 
court arc fulfilling a very special mission. They help those 
individuals who suffer from a severe mental illness, who find 
themselves in trouble with the law. Instead of locking them up 
in jail, they are offered mental health services, medication and 
counseling. It is a win-win situation: the individual wins 
because they get the treatment that they need and they avoid 
serving time in jail. The county wins because money is saved 
and because this is the right and humane thing to do. In the 
three years that the Court has existed, with their low recidivism 
rates, the court has worked. We at NAMI San Francisco 
applaud you for your work. " 

- Pamela Fischer, President 

National Alliance for the Mentally III, 

San Francisco 



X he Behavioral Health Court offers intensive, court super- 
vised mental heath treatment to persons charged with crimes 
related to mental illness. A unique collaboration between the 
Trial Courts, the Public Defender, the District Attorney and 
the Department of Public Health, the court is now in its third 
year. Once a week, a judge meets with attorneys, treatment 
providers, social workers and psychologists to develop a 
comprehensive mental health treatment plan for each partici- 
pant. Plans may include residential or outpatient treatment, 
housing and medication. Upon successful completion of the 
treatment plan, the participant graduates from the court, earn- 
ing a dismissal of the charges or a reduction in sentence. 



Proposition 36 



X reposition 36 was passed by voters in 2000 and is a spe- 
cial court that allows clients convicted of drug possession 
crimes to participate in treatment rather than being impris- 
oned. In 2006, our office represented 411 clients in 
Proposition 36 court. In 2006, 95 clients completed the pro- 
gram and participated in a graduation ceremony at city hall. 

Drug Assessment (Substance Abuse Treatment 
Placement) 

An 2006, our office performed 463 substance abuse assess- 
ments and helped place most of these clients in residential or 
outpatient treatment. This year, the unit expanded its services 
to include youth previously committed to the California 
Youth Authority, who were placed in long term residential 
treatment facilities at Delancey Street or Walden House. 



Drug Court 



D, 



'rug Court is a proven solution to the devastating cycle of 
drug addiction, homelessness, and criminal activity that 
plague San Francisco. Drug Court looks beyond the surface 
of criminal charges to the source of criminal conduct. The 
Court is designed to treat addicts who engage in drug sales, 
theft and prostitution to support their addiction. Participants 
agree to enter and complete an intensive one-year outpatient 
treatment program, and come to court regularly to report on 
their progress. 

In 2006, over 335 felony and misdemeanor cases were dis- 
missed and/or probations were successfully terminated 
because clients graduated from Drug Court. 




Client with Defender Carmen Aguirre. 



k 



Making Justice Happen 



Re-Entry Unit 



I 



n October 2006, the Public Defender's office started a re- 
entry unit consisting of three social workers. They evaluate 
clients for drug treatment programs and other services such 
as housing, job skills and vocational training, community 
mental health and education programs. The unit prepares and 
presents re-entry plans for incarcerated clients. The plan out- 
lines services and life skills that clients need. The re-entry 
'unit also facilitate substance abuse treatment placements for 
clients. 

In its first three months, the unit helped over 1 60 clients 
abtain re-entry services. 59 clients have been successfully 
referred to outpatient/residential treatment. 

Clean Slate 




Defender Demarris Evans at Clean Slate Anniversary Celebration 
n Bayview/Hunters Point. 

i^lean Slate is a program where former offenders can wipe 
heir records clean, thus allowing them to get jobs and quali- 
fy for federal benefits if they have taken steps to turn their 
ives around. Once a week, the main office holds "walk-in" 
liours where clients can consult with the attorney and staff 
vho comprise the Clean Slate team. In addition to the main 
Office, Clean Slate holds office hours at Bayview Hunters 
^oint and the Western Addition. 

In 2006, the Clean Slate Program opened new satellite 
pffices in the Mission District and Visitacion Valley. 

The Clean Slate Program application is now available online 
hrough the Public Defender website at: 
■ vww.sfgov.org/cleanslate. 

Children of Incarcerated Parents Program 

'W hen a parent is arrested, the question of what happens 
o the children is one of the most emotionally difficult issues 
acing society. The arrest of a parent can have a devastating 
:ffect on children and can result in the loss of parental rights. 



Our Children of Incarcerated Parents (CIP) unit was devel- 
oped to assist the incarcerated parent in maintaining a mean- 
ingful relationship with his or her children in appropriate 
cases. The caseworker performs an assessment to determine 
the needs of the parent and child, and assists in arranging 
parenting classes and child visits. The caseworker also assists 
the clients in family law proceedings, and in other matters 
affecting their children. Initiated with the support of the 
Zellerbach Family Fund in 2004, the program has now been 
fully integrated into the office's re-entry services unit. 



"My experience this summer has been nothing short of amaz- 
ing. By far, the single most important factor in making this 
summer so special is that my assigned attorney was an incredi- 
ble mentor. He asked my thoughts, shared his own, explained 
the actions he took and continually challenged me to find other 
solutions that might have worked. Thanks for such a reward- 
ing summer. " 

— Van Swearingen, Intern, August 2006 



Volunteer Intern Program 



A he San Francisco Public Defender's Volunteer Internship 
Program (VIP) provides internship opportunities for law stu- 
dents, paralegals, investigators, college students and volun- 
teers who are interested in receiving hands-on experience 
meeting with clients, writing motions, conducting investiga- 
tions and assisting attorneys in trial. Students apply to partic- 
ipate in the office's fall, spring or summer internship pro- 
grams. 

In 2006, 215 volunteers representing ten colleges and univer- 
sities, 29 law schools from across the United States, and two 
foreign law schools, provided support to the attorneys, para- 
legals, investigators and support staff. 

To apply, or for more information, please call (415) 553- 
9630. 



Volunteer Attorney Program 



A he Volunteer Attorney Program offers both recently-grad- 
uated lawyers and attorneys from private law firms full-time 
work experience handling misdemeanor cases. In addition, 
the program benefits law firms who want their associates to 
gain experience trying cases before juries. The attorneys 
receive extensive training in trial skills, evidence and court- 
room protocol. The highly competitive program requires a 
full-time four month commitment. 

In 2006, seven attorneys participated in the Volunteer 
Attorney Program. Participating firms included Fenwick & 
West and Howard Rice. The volunteer attorneys tried a total 
of 14 jury trials. 



Public Defender 2006 Case Statistics 



1 otal Cues Handled by the Public Defender's Office: 
25,000 

felony Unit: 

total cases: l >.23() 

Arraignments: 4.01 1 

c !ases dismissed: 1,108 

Cases resolved by plea bargain before 

preliminary hearing: 1,493 
Number of cases held to answer: 721 
rotal guilty pleas: 1,240 
Jury trials: 66 

Ave. caseload per attorney (At any given time): 50 
Ave. cases per attorney (Annual): 152 

Type of Cases: 

Homicides: 50 

Sex offenses: 48 

Violent or serious felonies: 638 

Burglary, Theft, Receiving Stolen Property: 670 

Drug offenses: 2,197 

DUI/Vehicular Homicides: 24 

Weapons: 46 

Miscellaneous: 302 

Probation violations: 2,241 

Misdemeanor Unit: 

Total cases: 9,085 

Arraignments: 4,496 

Cases dismissed: 2,055 

Trials: 130 

Ave. cases per attorney (Annual): 600 

Ave. caseload per attorney (At any given time): 150 

Juvenile Unit: 

Total cases: 1,486 

Court appearances: 3,455 

Court trials: 55 

Contested dispositions: 66 

Ave. cases per attorney (Annual): 186 

Ave. caseload per attorney (At any given time): 64 

Total educational placements: 156 

Total Youth Authority (CYA) Commitments: 1* 



Mental Health Unit: 

Total cases: 3,533 

Civil: 

Certification review hearings: 2,605 
Conservatorship: 213 
Renewal of conservatorship: 498 
Writs: 64 

Criminal: 

Maximum term extensions: 9 
Writ of conditional release: 5 
Restoration of sanity: 3 
Conditional release/out-patient parole: 1 
Revocation of out-patient: 5 
In-patient progress reports: 68 
Out-patient status reports/renewals: 42 
1370 Top-Out: 12 
Miscellaneous: 8 

Behavioral Health Court: 

Total cases: 302 

Total number of graduates: 40 

Drug Court: 

Total cases: 1167 

Proposition 36: 

Total cases: 411 

Substance Abuse Unit: 

Clients evaluated: 463 

Clients placed into treatment programs: 142 

Clean Slate: 

Open Cases: 3,882 

Motions: 1,064 

Number of Walk-in/Drop-in Clients: 1198 

Investigation Unit 

Attorney investigation requests: 2,400 
Subpoenas served: 4,500 
Interviews: 2363 



*This commitment was modified to an out-of-home place- 
ment treatment facility after one month. 

Research Unit: 

Memoranda: 60 

Motions to Dismiss/Suppress Evidence: 69 

Other motions: 48 

Writs and appeals: 79 



Reentry Unit: 

167 clients referred to unit. 

59 clients referred to outpatient/residential treatment. 

Recruitment/Volunteer Intern Program: 

Interns: 215 



10 



Public Defender Staff 



IPublic Defender: Jeff Adachi 

Chief Attorney: Teresa Caffese 

JExecutive Assistant to the Public Defender: Angela Auyong 

Felony Managing Attorneys: Will Maas and Rebecca Young 

Misdemeanor Managing Attorney: Niki Solis 

Juvenile Managing Attorney: Patricia Lee 

Mental Health Managing Attorney: Kara Chien 

'Research Managing Attorney: Chris Gauger 

Director of Training: Craig Peters 

'Director of Investigations and Support Services: Kathy Bull 

Oirector of Interns and Recruitment: Kathy Asada 

'Felony Unit: 



"armen Aguirre 
■3icka Barlow 
;3abriel Bassan 
Jnda Colfax 
;lenry Doering 
.loberto Evangelista 
sandy Feinland 
::> eter Fitzpatrick 
Michael Fox 
steve Gayle 
i\zita Ghafourpour 
1 3reg Goldman 
Carla Gomez 
JOanielle Harris 
Cleigh Hathaway 
ilizabeth Hilton 
Thris Hipps 
Christopher Hite 

Vlisdemeanor Unit: 

Tindy Elias 

^ori Flowers 

Stephanie Lacambra 
Pustyn Lezin 
Maria Lopez 

'Juvenile Unit: 

< ; ean Amabile 

loger Chan 

preg Feldman 

CONTACT INFORMATION 



Daro Inouye 
Katherine Isa 
Mark Iverson 
Mark Jacobs 
Susan Kaplan 
Lisa Katz 
Sujung Kim 
Tal Klement 
Jennifer Levin 
Alex Lilien 
Adam Lipson 
Eric Luce 
Mary Mallen 
Kwixuan Maloof 
Randall Martin 
Seth Meisels 
Articia Moore 
Steve Olmo 

Leah McLean 
Paul Myslin 
Vilaska Nguyen 
Hadi Razzaq 
Diana Rosenstein 

Emily Goldman 
Debra Hoffman 
Jan Lecklikner 



Brian Pearlman 
Eric Quandt 
Aleem Raja 
Manohar Raju 
Matthew Rosen 
Stephen Rosen 
Mel Santos 
Sangeeta Sinha 
Phoenix Streets 
Rafael Trujillo 
Tyler Vu 
Phong Wang 
Doug Welch 
Jacque Wilson 
Charmaine Yu 
Maria Zamora 



Peter Santina 
Tiffany Tisen 
Michelle Tong 
Stephanie Wargo 



Rebecca Marcus 
Stephen Zollman 



Research Unit: 

Dorothy Bischoff Norene Lew 

Drug Court: 

Simin Shamji 

Proposition 36: 

Jami Tillotson 

Mental Health Unit: 

Jennifer Johnson 

Clean Slate Program: 

Demarris Evans Belle La 

Children of Incarcerated Parents: 

Yolanda Robinson 
Investigation Unit: 

Carolyn Hanna 
Jennifer Jennings 
Greg Jowdy 
Pat Leary 
Ricardo Lopez 
Karen Masi 



Armando Miranda 



Jose Mendoza 
Christina Pena 
Nigel Phillips 
Lawrence Porchia 
Alexis Routh 
Jill Schroeder 



Reentry Unit 

Shannon Bennett Jessica Flintoft 

Christina Dominguez Michael Kinoshita 

Administrative Support Unit: 

Eunice Kaneko Larry Roberts 

Clerical Unit: 

Thelma Flores-Arroyo Angela Mathews 
Ana Guevara Lynn Mechanic 

Virginia Libiran Mary Muao 

Judy Liu 

Word Processing Unit: 



Rosario Carbajal 

Paralegal Unit: 

Noah Barish 
Amy Bevan 
Julia Deutsch 
Tamar Eggers 



Emily Ng 

Heather Kelly 
Andrew Koltuniak 
Joan Kruckewitt 
Brendan Loftus 



Information/Technology Unit: 

Thomas Brown Richard Bui 

Research Fellows: 

Matthew Cutherbertson 
Gunnar Rosenquist 



Louise Winterstein 



Jill Shaw 
Sandra Smutz 
Gary Sourifman 
Everson Thompson 
Debora Warren 
Marynella Woods 



Luz Rodriguez 
John Tennison 
Wynona Winterstein 



Sandra Reyna 

Kenneth Olivencia 
Ilona Solomon 
Anthony Sosa 
Sydney Spector 
Liliana Vera 

Rene Manzo 



Office & Directory 
Main Fax 
: ront Desk 



(415)553-1671 
(415)553-9810 
(415)553-8128 

hotos by Christine J egan - www.christinejegan.com, Benjamin 



Investigation Fax 
Juvenile Division 
Juvenile Fax 



Clean Slate 
Intern Program 



(415)553-9646 
(415)753-7600 
(415)566-3030 

La - www.benjaminla.com, and Kathy Asada. 



(415) 553-9337 
(415) 553-9630 



The Public Defender would like to thank the following individuals, law firms and organizations 
for their sponsorship of the EQUAL JUSTICE CAMPAIGN: 
Scott Seo & Navigant Consulting Jones Day Sedgwick, Detert, LLP 

Family of Robert Nicco Cris Arguedas Cooley Godward LLP 

Heller Ehrman LLP JeffBleich Bar Association of San Francisco 

O'Melveny & Myers LLP James Collins Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP 

Pillsbury Winthrop LLP Douglas Young Farella Braun + Mattel LLP 



A Story of Innocence: Wrong Place at the Wrong Time 



i 



D Ma\ 2005. M.G. was a 43 year-old man living in West 
Oakland, He worked in San Francisco as a parking attendant 
M.G ow nod a ear and used it to drive to San Francisco. One 
night, three acquaintances (two women and a man) offered 
him twenty dollars to give them a ride from Oakland to the 
tenderloin in San Francisco. He agreed. In the Tenderloin, 
the) gol out o\' the ear and asked M.G. to wait for them. He 
waited in the car while the others walked away, out of his 
\ lew. Approximately a half hour later, they returned and told 
him to drive away. As he pulled away from the curb, M.G. 
noticed a police car coming 
up behind him with lights 
Hashing and siren going. He 
immediately pulled over. 

M.G. and his three passen- 
gers were detained. 
Witnesses had told police 
thai two men had shot and 
robbed a man around the 
comer from where M.G. had 
been parked. Two other men 
happened upon the scene, 
and told the police that they 
too had been robbed by 
"'those guys," pointing to 
M.G. and his acquaintances, 
who the police had all handcuffed and detained. 

M.G and his three passengers were charged with three 
counts of robbery and one count of felony murder. M.G. was 
charged on aiding and abetting, and conspiracy. 

Public Defender Kleigh Hathaway was appointed to repre- 
sent M.G. Bail was set at $1 million. 

Eyewitness Testimony 

At the preliminary hearing, M.G. and his attorney were opti- 
mistic about the possibility that he would be released, as 
there was no evidence that he was at the scene of the crimes. 
Rather, the evidence showed that M.G. was the driver of the 
car in which the other defendants were found when they 
were arrested. However, one of the eyewitnesses to the 
shooting testified that M.G. was standing next to the shooter 
and went through the pockets of the person who was shot. 

Then, on the last day of 



walking toward the shooting minutes before the man was 
shot, and walking away from the shooting seconds after the 
fatal shot was fired. These photos appeared to be that of the 
male passenger and one of the female passengers who was 
dressed like a man. M.G. was not in the photographs. 

The defense requested more time in order to obtain the video 
tape and to use it to cross examine the single "rogue" witness 
who placed M.G. at the scene of the shooting. The court 
denied this request and held M.G. for trial on all charges. 
M.G remained in jail until five months later, when the trial 
began. 

At trial, no one identified 
M.G. as being at the scene 
of the shooting, or at the 
two other robberies. It was 
established that the other 
"man" at the scene was 
actually one of M.G. 's 
female passengers. The 
"rogue" eyewitness who 
had initially identified 
M.G. at the preliminary 
hearing testified that, after 
watching the video, she 

was sure that it was not 

Deputy Public Defender Kleigh Hathaway. M.G. at the scene of the 

shooting. The witness testified that she identified M.G. dur- 
ing the preliminary hearing because he had been the only 
other African American male dressed in jail clothing in the 
courtroom that day. 







The witness testified that 
she identified M.G during 
the preliminary hearing 
because he had been the 
only other African American 
male dressed in jail clothing 
in the courtroom that day. 



Then, on the last day of 
the preliminary hearing, 
the District Attorney 
came to court with photo- 
graphs taken from a video 
camera less than 1/3 of a 
block away from the 
crime. j 9?3 # 



the preliminary hearing, 
the District Attorney 
came to court with pho- 
tographs taken from a 
video camera less than 
1/3 of a block away 
from the crime. The 
photographs showed 
two of the defendants 



Even after this, the 
judge again denied a 
motion to dismiss the 
case due to lack of 
evidence, and he 
allowed the case to 
proceed to the jury. 

M.G. presented posi- 
tive character evidence, including his boss, who told the jury 
that he would hire M.G. back even if he was sent to jail. 

The Verdict 

The jury deliberated for three weeks and returned with guilty 
verdicts for all three of M.G. 's co-defendants. They 
announced they had acquitted M.G. on some accusations but 
were still undecided on the homicide charge. The judge 
asked the jury to return to the jury room and deliberate fur- 
ther. 

Five hours later, the jury returned with not guilty verdicts on 
all charges against M.G After nearly fifteen months in jail, 
M.G. was set free. He currently lives with a niece in West 
Oakland and is -working at his old job. 



12 



le mission of the San Francisco Public Defender's 
Office is to protect and defend the rights of our indigent 
clients through effective, vigorous, compassionate, and 

creative legal advocacy." 










* 



*K I 



San Francisco Public Defender's Office 
555 7th Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 



'Ihis report was not printed at public expense. 



* HOUCHEN w 
^ BINDERY LTD* 

. UTICA/OMAHANE.^ 



2007